Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment, on 21St December, 1944, for the Christmas Recess—met at Eleven o'Clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATHS OF MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death, in action, of Lieut.-Colonel John Robert Jermain Macnamara, Member for the County of Essex (Chelmsford Division), and of the death of James Walker, Esquire, Member for the County of Lanark (Motherwell Division), and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained, and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Members.

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills: That, in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills, the Standing Orders have been complied with, namely:

Commercial Gas.
East Grinstead Gas and Water.
Ilford Corporation.
Manchester Ship Canal.
South Suburban Gas.

Staffordshire Potteries Stipendiary Justice.
Wadebridge Rural District Council.
Warrington Corporation.
Weaver Navigation.
Wisbech Water.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords]

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills: That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, namely:

Bucks Water Board.
Colne Valley Water.
Gloucester Corporation.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.
Metropolitan Water Board.
North Devon Water Board.
Plympton St. Mary Rural District Council.
Pontypool Gas and Water.
Reigate Corporation.
South Shields Corporation.
Wallasey Corporation.

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS

STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills: That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
Newport (Isle of Wight) Corporation.
Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

R.F.C. Observer's Badge

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Secretary of State for War why he has issued instructions for discontinuing the wearing of the single wing, the observer's badge of the R.F.C. in the last war.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): The instruction referred to by the hon. Member is not new. It repeats an instruction which has been in force since June, 1940, and I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend then Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air, on 8th December, 1942, to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams).

Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that these very gallant men won the badge for operations during the last war, and that there are very few of them left, can there be any harm in continuing to allow them to wear the observer's wings; and will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider the decision of 1942?

Sir J. Grigg: It is not a question of my reconsidering it. The policy is one for the Air Ministry. I merely pass on their decision in Army Council Instructions.

Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that I asked the Secretary of State for Air a similar question before Christmas, and he referred me to the Secretary of State for War, would not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this decision, and give these men permission to wear this badge on their uniform?

Sir J. Grigg: I cannot, without refreshing my memory, recall what the Secretary of State for Air said, but it is not in my power to give permission.

Mr. Granville: In order to clear up the question of which Minister is responsible, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Interpreters (Pay)

Mr. John Dugdalc: asked the Secretary of State for War whether British soldiers qualified as interpreters in German, receive any extra pay.

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir.

A.T.S. (Overseas Service)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now decided to relax the rule that prevents a wife serving in the same theatre of operations as her husband, so as to permit members of the A.T.S. to volunteer for service overseas in theatres of war where their husbands are serving, provided that they will not be serving in the same unit.

Sir J. Grigg: In the answer I gave my hon. Friend to his supplementary question on 21st December, I was referring to husbands and wives serving in the same unit. There is no rule forbidding them from serving in the same theatre. I am sorry I did not make this clear.

Mr. Turton: Does that also apply to voluntary organisations serving with the Army?

Sir J. Grigg: I think that is a matter which is now under consideration, and I would be very grateful if my hon. Friend would put a Question down so that I can give him a considered answer.

Colonel Sir Arthur Evans: asked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the decision of His Majesty's Government to make available an additional 250,000 men for the Army, he has now any further statement to make on the posting of auxiliaries of the A.T.S. overseas.

Sir J. Grigg: A considerable part of this 250,000 will have to be found by the Army from its own resources. They will be combed out from rearward establishments and drafted to fighting units. This process has in fact been going on for many months now and very large numbers of men have been retrained for more active roles. But except for such circumstances as a reduction in the needs of static defence occasioned by changes in the military situation or where it is permissible to adopt slightly lower administrative standard the men combed out will have to be replaced. We are relying on providing a considerable number of such replacements by the new proposals for posting members of the A.T.S. overseas announced by me on 21st December last. We shall also have to rely to some extent on tightening up the criteria for releases from the Army.
As regards the posting of A.T.S. overseas, let me make it clear that if there are enough volunteers nobody need be posted, that no auxiliary who is either married or under 21 will be posted compulsorily.


Moreover none will be sent to India except as volunteers and it is not proposed to send any to Burma or West Africa either compulsorily or as volunteers. With regard to the mixed batteries of anti-aircraft which are now coming into action on the Western Front, all women are volunteers.

Sir A. Evans: Do I understand from my right hon. Friend that he has called for volunteers from the A.T.S. for this purpose, in order to form some estimate of what percentage of these requirements is supplied by volunteers only?

Sir J. Grigg: Certainly, Sir, the process of volunteering has been going on for a very long time, and the reason for the change has been that in certain spheres the stream of volunteers has, at any rate for the time being, dried up.

Mr. Bowles: May we have this clearly from the right hon. Gentleman? On the last day before we went into Recess the right hon. Gentleman said that there would be no posting until the House had met. Surely, the House understood that there would be some discussion in the House before any posting took place?

Sir J. Grigg: No posting has taken place. I carried out my promise and shall carry out my promise. The matter of an opportunity for discussion is not one for me, but for the Leader of the House, but I can assure the hon. Member that I am not in the habit of breaking promises.

Mr. Bowles: I am not saying that the right hon. Gentleman has broken his promise, but does not his answer mean that the policy is going to be carried out without discussion in this House?

Mr. Graham White: If the policy of accepting volunteers is made widely and fully known, may it not be that the question will not arise at all?

Sir J. Grigg: I assure the hon. Member that it has been made known repeatedly in every unit throughout the country.

Personnel (Political Activities)

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of Stale for War whether he is aware that A.C.I. No. 1527, of 1944, which asserts that it is an offence against King's Regulations for all ranks to permit their names to be published for political purposes or to sign public petitions, circulars and appeals dealing with political matters, has no justification in law; and whether he will have this misrepresentation of the legal position withdrawn.

Sir J. Grigg: The A.C.I. referred to does not make the assertion mentioned in the first part of the hon. and learned Member's Question. It says in effect that an officer or soldier who permits his name or opinion on a Service matter to be published for political purposes or adds, or allows his name to be added to a public petition, circular or appeal dealing with political matters, may be held to have contravened the King's Regulations. The question whether in a particular instance there has been a contravention of those Regulations is one for determination by the responsible military authority. The second part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. Pritt: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is almost impossible for any intelligent lawyer to suggest that the matters suggested in the first part of the Army Council Instruction could be offences at all; and is it not just a blackmailing threat?

Sir J. Grigg: It is not in the least a threat; it is a warning.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the prohibition of the expression of political opinions by Army officers apply to General Scobie, who recently expressed opinions about minorities in Greece?

Sir J. Grigg: If the hon. Member wants to ask a question about General Scobie in a particular instance, he should put it down.

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for War what reasons the commanding officer of No. 11 convalescent camp, C.M.F., had for stopping the lecture on the International Brigade fixed and advertised for 13th September last; and whether he is aware that the soldier invited to give the lecture, who had done much to build up at that camp a fine occupational therapy department, was unexpectedly posted, shortly after the date of a previous question on that subject, to a remote camp where he is in charge of whitewashing and other general maintenance work.

Sir J. Grigg: I have nothing at present to add to the facts I have already given the hon. and learned Member about this case, but I am inquiring into the allegations made in the last part of his Question.

Mr. Pritt: Is the right hon. Gentleman inquiring also into the first part of the Question, because the only reason which


he gave me previously for an officer doing a ridiculous thing, was that the officer had power to do it?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not agree that that is a fair summary of the letter which I wrote to the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Gallacher: Are we to understand that a lecture on the International Brigade is prohibited in the British Army?

Sir J. Grigg: The hon. Member is to understand nothing except that the arrangement of lectures in a unit is a matter for the commanding officer.

Mr. Gallacher: May we take it from that answer that the Minister's job is to ensure that Members will understand nothing?

Overseas Service

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in order to minimise the period of overseas service in the Army, he will cause a review to be made of all war establishments in non-operational commands.

Sir J. Grigg: This process has been going on for many months. This is being intensified in consequence of the announcement made on 22nd December. The primary object of the process is, however, to produce men to sustain the units and formations in contact with the enemy and it is, I fear, unlikely that it will have a material effect on the Python scheme, at any rate for the time being.

Mr. Hogg: Will care be taken to prevent a recurrence of what happened in one case, where, within three months, the reduction in the non-operational staff has been more than made up by the same Command?

Sir J. Grigg: I would rather like to have information about the Command in which it happened.

Mr. Hogg: I will give it to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Turton: Is a special effort being made to cut down the establishment in non-operational theatres in the Middle East?

Sir J. Grigg: That is really the only large non-operational theatre, so that, obviously, my answer applies to establishments there.

Compassionate Leave

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State far War the principles an which compassionate leave is granted in cases of marital infidelity on the part of wives whose husbands are serving overseas.

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. Friend to the table I circulated with the reply I gave a number of hon. Members on 7th November. As stated in that answer, this table was intended only for general guidance to Commanders overseas, with whom in all cases the final decision rests.

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether provision is made for the granting of compassionate or privilege leave to France to soldiers whose parents reside in France and who have not seen their parents since the outbreak of war.

Sir J. Grigg: This question is now being considered with the other Government Departments concerned and with the authorities in France.

Nursing Personnel

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now considered the possibility of posting nursing personnel as between overseas theatres in order to minimise the burden of service in tropical theatres.

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. Such exchanges are being effected between certain theatres of war. The possibilities are, however, limited.

Demobilisation (Low Medical Categories)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, as the Government's interim demobilisation plan makes no provision for exceptional treatment of officers and other ranks relegated to low medical categories unfitting them for further combatant service, such persons are now retained on sedentary work in home establishments; and whether to facilitate their rehabilitation in civilian life, he will arrange that persons sent back to this country on relegation to medical category C may be granted honourable discharge in advance of the demobilisation plan.

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. The present man-power position does not enable us to dispense with the services of officers and men who can be usefully employed in the


Army. Those working in home establishments are in fact releasing fitter men for employment overseas.

S.H.A.E.F. (Censorship)

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that censors attached to S.H.A.E.F. have recently been given instructions to pass those communications from front line war correspondents which state that allied progress has been good; and whether he will take steps to see that, within the bounds of military security, war correspondents are free to send to their papers information free from propaganda content.

Sir J. Grigg: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir." The matter is, of course, one for the Supreme Allied Commander, but I understand that the copy of war correspondents is censored for military security only, and that at no time have S.H.A.E.F. censors received instructions that they should be influenced by considerations of propaganda in the course of their censorship duty.

Mr. Strauss: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the allegation contained in the first part of my Question was made by responsible war correspondents, who passed the information on to London papers, in which it was printed; and may we take it from his reply that these statements which were printed in the London papers were incorrect, and that the war correspondents were misinformed?

Sir J. Grigg: I can only give the hon. Member the information which I derive from S.H.A.E.F. If he wishes me to inquire into particular allegations, I certainly will do so, but the only course open to me is to send them to the Supreme Commander.

Operations (Snow Suits)

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary of State for War if Allied troops operating on the Western Front are adequately provided with white tunics for operations in snow-covered country.

Sir J. Grigg: Enough stocks are held in the theatre of war to provide snow suits for those who need them.

Awards (Publication)

Lieut.-Colonel Windsor Clive: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction in the Army at the delay in publishing awards of decorations, including immediate awards;

and what steps he proposes to take to accelerate such publication.

Sir J. Grigg: The delay in publishing awards of decorations is due partly to the time it often takes in the course of operations for the recommendations to reach the Commander-in-Chief from his subordinate commanders, partly to the necessity to check carefully the particulars of the individuals concerned so as to ensure that no mistake is made, and partly to the considerable increase in the number of recommenations made when, as in the last months, there has been heavy and incessant fighting. I very much regret this delay and all possible steps to reduce it will certainly be taken. But in present circumstances it may not be possible to reduce it appreciably.

Home Leave Scheme

Mr. Leach: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware there is considerable unhappiness among soldiers in the Near East over the leave plan; and if he is now in a position to grant repatriation after four years' service to men in non-operational areas such as the Middle East.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for War what are now the maximum periods of service overseas in the Middle East and Far East, respectively.

Sir J. Grigg: I will refer to the reply I gave a number of hon. Members on 26th September. The position has not altered since then except for the introduction of the short leave scheme announced by the Prime Minister on 17th November.

Mr. Leach: Is there not now in this non-operational theatre a sufficiency of men for a relaxation of the regulations in regard to leave?

Sir J. Grigg: I have already answered a question on that this morning. If this had been the case, I can assure the hon. Member it would have been done.

Mr. Leach: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this unhappiness does really occur?

Mr. Walter Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases in Italy men have had no period of leave for 12 months; and will he go into the matter to see if it is at all possible to grant at least seven days' leave every three months?

Sir J. Grigg: The question of local leave in Italy is a quite different one. If the hon. Member has specifically identifiable cases which show that there is any general shortage of local leave in Italy, I shall be very glad to go into them, but it is a different question from that raised by the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach).

Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable feeling of unfairness among the soldiers who have returned from Italy, that all the privileges seem to be granted to those who are in the Liberation Army on the Continent, and can he see to it that any privileges in this respect are given to troops from Burma and the Middle East?

Sir J. Grigg: That may be the impression but to the best of my knowledge there is not the slightest foundation for it.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the complaints coming in our post-bags now are that there are very few allocations per 100 and that in a good many cases men who have been away three or four years are not benefiting by any scheme at all? That is the gravamen of their complaint. Cannot something be done to give the men confidence in the Prime Minister's scheme?

Sir J. Grigg: The Prime Minister's announcement made quite clear the magnitude of the scheme, and that it was of a limited character.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentleman ensure that when these men do come on leave, the leave is not counted until they have reached home, because it is most unsatisfactory that this period should begin in the middle of the night when there are no trains until 4 or 5 hours later?

Sir J. Grigg: I think arrangements have been made to prevent that as much as possible, but in view of the vast variety of places to which the troops go, a certain number of incidents of that kind are bound to take place. However, we have taken steps to reduce them to the very minimum. I would not like to say for certain, but my impression is that in the calculation of leave, a reasonable allowance is made for travelling so that leave often starts from the time they reach home, but if the hon. Gentleman will put

down a Question on that, I will give him an answer.

Mr. John Dugdale: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us to what period the average length of service abroad has been reduced, because there has been considerable irritation?

Sir J. Grigg: The period stands as stated in my answer of 26th September. I would be very grateful if the hon. Member would read that answer, because it was very carefully drafted. Answers which are given without regard to the qualifications, are telegraphed out to commands overseas and are apt to be misleading. If, after reading that answer, the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask any particular questions, I shall be glad to answer them.

Hospital Case (Overseas Posting)

Mr. Viant: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state why Sapper F. W. White, No. 14712834, was sent overseas on 11th December, 1944, although he had been ill from September, 1944, had been in Caterham Hospital during November and discharged with 32 boils; that on 8th December his military doctor ordered him to bed in his billet and arranged for a specialist to see him on the 13th, but he was sent overseas on 11th December; that on 4th January 1945 his father heard that he was in hospital and receiving penicillin injections every three hours; and what his intentions are in regard to those who were responsible for sending the man away in such a state.

Sir J. Grigg: Inquiries are being made into this case.

Mr. Viant: In view of the anxiety of the parents of this young man, could my right hon. Friend give any idea as to when he will be able to make a reply?

Sir J. Grigg: I will do it as quickly as I can, but I cannot give a specific date.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL FORCES (WAR SERVICE INCREMENTS)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the local military commanders have completed their consultations with Colonial Governors as to the application of the scheme of additional benefits for His Majesty's forces with prolonged service during the present war; and whether they have made any recommendations.

Sir J. Grigg: Recommendations have been received from a number of military commanders after consultation with the Colonial Governors concerned and these recommendations are being considered. In other cases the final recommendations have not yet been received, though in most of them the preliminary views have been reported which will enable progress to be made on the question generally. As I said in my answer to the hon. Member on 10th October appropriate War Service Increments are being paid to the local forces raised in Malta, Gibraltar, Palestine and Cyprus.

Mr. Dugdale: When may we expect a full report?

Sir J. Grigg: I cannot say off-hand. There will be no avoidable delay. We are a good way on with the examination.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR, GERMANY

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War, if he is aware that British prisoners of war in Stalag IV C are working 12 hours a day, seven days a week, with one Sunday off a month; and if he will make appropriate representations through the Protecting Power.

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. I am well aware of this and of other matters in connexion with Stalag IV C. Repeated representations have been made through the Protecting Power, so far without satisfaction.

Mr. Driberg: Will they continue to be made until there is some satisfactory result?

Sir J. Grigg: They will continue to be made as long as there is the slightest hope of their achieving any result.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: What is the nature of the work?

Sir J. Grigg: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIBERATED ITALY (FOOD SUPPLIES)

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary of State for War, if he can give the House any information with regard to the position of food supplied to the civil population in newly liberated territories in Italy.

Sir J. Grigg: Considerable quantities of food were despatched to Italy during

1944 for the civil population under joint United States/United Kingdom arrangements. These imports form a part of the supplies imported by the Supreme Allied Commander for various military purposes and I regret that it would not be in the public interest to give figures even indeed if it were possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPATRIATED PRISONERS OF WAR (TUBERCULOSIS CASES)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction of relatives with the arrangements made for repatriated prisoners of war suffering from tuberculosis; and if he will consider these complaints with a view to an alteration of the present policy.

Sir J. Grigg: It is the policy of the Army to discharge soldiers suffering from tuberculosis as soon as possible so that if necessary they may enter civil sanatoria near their homes. Repatriated prisoners of war are given special consideration, but I am aware that there is sometimes delay in admission owing to pressure on accommodation. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has therefore set aside a number of beds in E.M.S. hospitals specially for Service patients awaiting transfer to sanatoria. This should materially help to remove any cause for complaint.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend kindly convey the information to the Minister of Health that his arrangements are most unsatisfactory and ask him to improve them in the future?

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly pass on the message to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, but whether I shall do it quite in these truculent terms is a matter which I should like to consider.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: In view of the fact that these men contracted the disease in the Army, can the right hon. Gentleman say why he is shelving his responsibility in this matter?

Sir J. Grigg: Because that happens to be the arrangement prescribed in the Army Regulations. The Army do not look after tuberculosis patients. Patients discharged for disability in the Army are looked after, in the case of tuberculosis, by the Ministry of Health, and in the case of other diseases in Ministry of Pensions hospitals.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN KING TIGER TANK

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give the size of gun, weight of projectile and thickness of front armour on the German King Tiger tank.

Sir J. Grigg: We have not yet received the complete details of the King Tiger. I understand, however, that it carries a 88 mm. gun, firing a projectile weighing 22.4 pounds and that its frontal armour is 5.9 inches thick. I cannot at present say the exact slope of the frontal armour.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Americans are reported to have some of these tanks captured in France; and is it not possible for him to get fuller particulars?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. One is on the way.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Treatment of Offenders (Advisory Council)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider appointing to the Advisory Council for the Treatment of Offenders, a member of the subordinate grades of the prison service, who would be able to bring practical experience to the meetings of the Council.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I recognise that prison officers have valuable experience of which the Council, when it comes to take evidence about the treatment of prisoners, will no doubt be glad to avail itself. I have, however, deliberately refrained from appointing to the Council any of my own officers or, indeed, any one representing a particular interest.

Mr. Brown: Does the Minister realise that one of the difficulties of such bodies as he has appointed is that they make recommendations without realising the practical consequences in terms of the duties of the prison officer himself? Would it not be an actual safeguard to appoint such an officer to the Council?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir, but my hon. Friend will be perfectly well aware that there are many interests with specialised knowledge, and if we started to appoint one interest to the Council, it would raise difficulties with the other interests. Therefore we thought it advisable to make sure that the members of the

Council should not be appointed because of any special interest.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider appointing to such an Advisory Council one who has been in prison but has received remission of sentence?

School Time (Science)

Sir John Graham Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the changes being made in the educational system of the U.S.S.R. with the object of adapting it to the conditions of modern civilisation, involving the allocation of a greatly increased proportion of school time to science; and whether he will consider the advisability of similar changes in the Scottish system of school education.

Mr. Johnston: I have been unable to obtain particulars of the changes in the educational system of the U.S.S.R. to which the hon. Member refers. Some time ago, however, I asked the Advisory Council on Education in Scotland to review the post primary Scottish educational system, and their investigations will no doubt cover the question of the time to be allocated and the importance attached to various subjects in the curriculum. I am sure the Council will be very glad to have any observations on developments in the U.S.S.R. of which my hon. Friend may be aware.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Fuel Consumption (Government Departments)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister for Fuel and Power whether he can give an assurance that Government Departments have no preference as to coal consumption, and that they are carrying out both the letter and the spirit of the Minister's regulations and recommendations.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): Yes, Sir.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman have further inquiries made, especially with regard to the Government Departments at Colwyn Bay?

Major Lloyd George: Obviously my hon. Friend has asked me a question on Government Departments as a whole. I can assure him that, taking the Depart-


ments as a whole, they are treated in exactly the same way as other civilian buildings. Returns show that consumption, as compared with the pre-war period, has decreased by 24 per cent.

Mr. Thorne: Is not preferential treatment given to big houses—there is one in South Kensington—over the small cottages in West Ham?

Major Lloyd George: There is no preferential treatment. Any householder can approach the local fuel officer if he is in special circumstances, and the local fuel officer has discretion to deal with the matter. When it comes to the question of the larger houses, their cuts are out of all proportion to the smaller houses.

Mr. McKinlay: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say why preference is given to the Members' Smoking Room against other parts of the House used by other hon. Members?

Major Lloyd George: I should not have thought that there was any preference given: it seems just as warm as anywhere else.

Mr. Thorne: Do big houses in South Kensington get more than the one hundredweight per week allowed?

Major Lloyd George: Any householder who can show special circumstances, such as sickness or large numbers of people in the house, is entitled to go to the local fuel officer, who has discretion to make an additional grant. That applies to all houses.

Mr. Thorne: But what I want to know is, do they get more than one hundredweight per week?

Ewehurst Colliery

Mr. Magnay: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) why the Ewehurst Colliery, Dipton, has been closed by the order of his Regional Controller;
(2) if, in view of the fact that the shares of the Ewehurst Colliery Company are held by members of His Majesty's Forces, that the miners who have regularly worked there have petitioned to restart the colliery and guaranteed to produce an average of five tons per manshift at the coal face, with an average production of at least three tons per employee, a higher production than that of neighbouring collieries to which these miners have been transferred, he will reconsider his decision and reopen this colliery.

Major Lloyd George: This colliery has ceased production on at least three occasions, the last being in February, 1943, when, after discussion with my regional controller, the receiver and manager of the colliery agreed that he was unable to maintain production owing to lack of labour. Both underground workers then employed were transferred to other collieries. The withdrawal of these two men from collieries where they are regularly employed to a small undertaking from which production has in the past few years been intermittent is not justified and would not result in an increase in output.

Mr. Magnay: In view of the expected reply received, and the difference in the recital of the facts, I give notice now that I will raise this burning matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINES DEPARTMENT (STAFF)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many officials were employed in the Mines Department in 1941; and how many were employed in his Ministry at the latest available date.

Major Lloyd George: At the beginning of 1941 the staff employed by the Mines Department numbered 1,177. At the beginning of last December the staff employed in my Ministry numbered 5,157. My hon. Friend will no doubt recollect that when the Ministry of Fuel and Power was formed it took over many functions in addition to those of the previous Mines Department. The staff taken over was approximately 3,625, the largest block of staff being in the Regional Petroleum Offices.

Sir W. Smithers: But can the Minister not see that in proportion to the increase in the number of officials, the production goes down?

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATIONS (PLANT)

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what new capacity has been added to the selected generating stations since 1939.

Major Lloyd George: The new plant which has been brought into commission in selected generating stations between 1st January, 1940, and 31st December, 1944, is approximately 2,650,000 kilowatts.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that it was stated in the Press this month that


the breaking point was 8.4 million kilowatts, and it is well known that the total plant plus that on order before the war was 8.6 million kilowatts? How does he account for that discrepancy?

Major Lloyd George: The new plant to which I have just referred is about equal to the increased demand since the war, but difficulty arises owing to the fact that the labour for maintenance is not as great as it was before the war.

Mr. Higgs: But the figures I have quoted show that there has been no increase in plant although there has been an addition of 2,000,000 kilowatts and over.

Oral Answers to Questions — EIRE (UNITED KINGDOM REPRESENTATIVE)

Professor Savory: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Union Jack was flown over the office of the United Kingdom representative in Dublin on the King's recent birthday; and what are the other appropriate occasions on which it is proposed to fly the flag.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): The technical arrangements for the flying of the flag were not complete in time for it to be flown on the 14th December. The next appropriate occasions will be St. Patrick's Day, the 17th March, and the day officially appointed for the celebration of His Majesty's Birthday, and the flag will be flown on those days.

Professor Savory: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that the British representatives in the Dominions of Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, have the title and status of High Commissioner; and why the British representative in the Dominion of Eire does not have the title and status of High Commissioner but is called simply the "United Kingdom Representative."

Mr. Emrys-Evans: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The United Kingdom Representative has the same status as that of a United Kingdom High Commissioner in an oversea Dominion. The designation of the post was discussed at the time when the first appointment was made shortly after the outbreak of war, and it was then

agreed between the two Governments that the title, "United Kingdom Representative," should be employed.

Professor Savory: Does my hon. Friend realise how strong is the feeling among Loyalists in Southern Ireland that the title and status of the United Kingdom Representative in Dublin should be the same as that of His Majesty's Representatives in other Dominions? We look upon this title of United Kingdom Representative as an inferiority of status.

Sir Alfred Beit: Can my hon. Friend say what is the title of the representative of Eire in England?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: High Commissioner.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINIONS SERVICES PERSONNEL (DIVORCE COSTS)

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how, when payment of costs in divorce proceedings are awarded against a soldier serving in one of the Dominions Forces, this payment can be obtained.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I am advised that a soldier serving in one of the Dominion Forces, while in this country, is in a position similar to that of a man in the United Kingdom Forces. He is amenable, generally, to the normal legal processes employed here for the recovery of debts. He is, however, immune from arrest or compulsion to appear before a court on account of any debt or sum of money not exceeding £30, but if the amount exceeds this sum he can be brought before a court. In either case, a judgment creditor, in levying execution, cannot touch the person, pay or equipment of the soldier. So far as private property is concerned the soldier is, of course, in the same position as the civilian. If the soldier has returned to the Dominion, it would be necessary for the judgment creditor to take proceedings there under the law of the Dominion.

Miss Rathbone: Is the Minister aware that some very hard cases are covered by this Question, cases in which women earning only a few pounds a week find themselves mulcted in expenses—in one case I know it was over £100—when they are quite blameless? Cannot the Dominion Governments be asked to make some change in the arrangements so that such debts can be recoverable from the soldier?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: This is a question of law.

Mr. Pritt: Is it not possible to get the Dominion authorities to consider such a matter, and to arrange for reductions from pay? If it is a matter of law, alter the law.

Major Taylor: Will my hon. Friend consider holding discussions with Dominion representatives over here?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: Yes, Sir, but as I have pointed out this is really a question of law.

Hon. Members: Alter the law.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TERMS

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent complications in international affairs, His Majesty's Government in conjunction with their Allies, have reconsidered their policy of unconditional surrender against the Axis Powers and the proposal to transfer from their homes by force millions of people in Central Europe in favour, as a beginning, of the encouragement of a new and democratic régime in Germany in which the United Nations could have faith, so as to bring the present conflict in Europe to a close on the basis of the Atlantic Charter.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Davies: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that these constant threats against the Axis Powers have a tendency to stiffen the people of Germany behind their Nazi leaders and to prolong the war? Will he not reconsider his policy and see whether he cannot employ his unrivalled powers to bring this misery to an end?

The Prime Minister: We do not take that view at all and I think the House would be overwhelmingly against our attempting to make peace by negotiation. At any rate, our Allies would be violently opposed to such a course. It is quite impossible to discuss these things at Question time but opportunities may occur in the course of debate. I am not of opinion that a demand for unconditional surrender would prolong the war. Anyhow, the war will be prolonged until unconditional surrender has been obtained.

Mr. Riley: While the right hon. Gentleman does not approve of any suggestion

of peace by negotiation, does he not appreciate that the slogan of unconditional surrender has great political value for Hitler and his associates?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Clothes Rationing

Mr Stourton: asked the President of the Board of Trade, if his attention has been drawn to the hardship imposed upon the general public through clothes rationing and the consumption of reserves of wearing apparel over a spell of 3½ years; and whether some concessions can be made in the next rationing period.

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: asked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is yet in a position to state what the clothing ration will be after 1st February.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): As from 1st February next a further 24 clothing coupons will be available. But in view of the heavy and increasing demands by the Supply Departments for labour and materials, and the need to provide, in advance, clothing for those to be demobilised from the Forces, I cannot at present say how long the next rationing period will last. This must depend on the course of the war and, although I hope to be able to make a further issue of coupons to the general public on 1st August, this may not prove possible until the 1st September. But I shall, in any case, arrange that a further issue is made on 1st August for the children. All the clothing coupons in the 1942–43 and 1943–44 books remain valid.

Mr. Stourton: While thanking the Minister for his sympathetic reply, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind the urgent need for more children's clothing and children's and adults' footwear?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, I am very well aware of that, and I am giving constant attention to it, subject to the difficulties which I know my hon. and gallant Friend appreciates very well.

Mr. Beaumont: While thanking the Minister for his reply, and also for promising a further issue of children's coupons on 1st August, which will be especially welcome, may I ask him whether he will keep in mind the urgent need for the


manufacture of additional cloth to meet the certificates already issued, and for an increase in the making up of clothes particularly for children and women?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, I am very conscious of that and I am in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour about it. Both cotton and woollen yarn are very much in mind at the present time.

Mrs. Adamson: In order to ease the problem of mothers of coping with the needs of their children will my right hon. Friend reduce the coupon value for necessities for children?

Mr. Dalton: The difficulty about that is that it is equivalent to issuing more

I. Functions of Regional Offices:—


In addition to the war-time function of finding and allocating factory and storage space for war purposes, the work of the Regional Offices will fall into four main divisions, namely—


(1) Reconversion generally, and particularly of the engineering industry, to peace-time production.


(2) De-requisitioning of factory and storage space and allocation of surplus Government factories.


(3) Distribution of industry functions outlined in Chapter 3 of the White Paper on Employment Policy, together with surveys, statistics and information generally.


(4) De-concentration of civilian industries, release of raw materials and labour (as soon as war needs permit) for civilian production and employment, and general assistance with advice and help where required.

II. Board of Trade Regional Controllers


Name.
Region.
Salary.


S. A. Sadler Forster
…
…
…
Northern (Newcastle)
…
£1,300


G. E. Naylor
…
…
…
North Eastern (Leeds)
…
Unpaid


J. Piggott
…
…
…
North Midland (Nottingham)
…
£1,300


R. W. Burkitt
…
…
…
Eastern (Cambridge)
…
£1,300


S. J. Graham
…
…
…
London
…
£1,300


H. W. Weathersbee
…
…
…
Southern (Reading)
…
Unpaid


B. W. T. Kay
…
…
…
South Western (Bristol)
…
£1,300


E. Brunning
…
…
…
Wales (Cardiff)
…
Unpaid


A. Heckle
…
…
…
Midland (Birmingham)
…
£1,300


H. N. Grundy
…
…
…
North Western (Manchester)
…
£1,450


R. A. Maclean
…
…
…
Scotland (Glasgow)
…
Unpaid


G. H. E. Parr*
…
…
…
Northern Ireland
…
*


* Permanent Secretary to the Northern Ireland Ministry of Commerce, who also acts part-time as Regional Controller of Factory &amp; Storage Premises and Board of Trade Regional Representative


All these Officers were selected in the light of their previous experience, and particularly in connection with industrial matters.

III. North Midland Regional Office


The number of persons employed at this Office (which covers Leicester) will be 40. The estimated annual cost of this office is £16,735.

Alarm Clocks

Mr. Hynd: asked the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in view of the widespread misunderstanding which still exists concerning the conditions of sale of North American spring-wound alarm clocks, he will issue a further notice

coupons, and there is not much point in doing that unless we can match the coupons with supplies.

Board of Trade Regional Offices

Colonel Lyons: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will particularise the functions of the newly-established regional offices of his Department; who are the head officers of each region, their salaries and the qualifications they, respectively, possess which selected them for these positions; and what will be the staff and estimated cost of the office controlling the region covering the city of Leicester.

Mr. Dalton: Since the reply contains much detail, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

to the trade and the Press emphasising that buying permits are not now issued or required but that such alarm clocks may be sold to or purchased by workers requiring them who are able to declare verbally that they do not already possess an alarm clock in working order.

Mr. Dalton: Permits are no longer required for these clocks. But retailers may reserve supplies for customers who declare that they need an alarm clock for their work and that they do not already possess one in working order. I hope that the publicity given to this reply will remove any misunderstanding on this subject.

Mr. Hynd: Will my right hon. Friend say whether it is necessary for workers to obtain a note from their employers before they can obtain an alarm clock?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, it is not necessary at all. This is a case where the worker's word is taken.

Wireless Batteries

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the President of the Board of Trade why 120-volt. Exide batteries which are sold at 11s. 1d. are in short supply and other 120-volt. batteries of less reliable make, and sold at 15s. 6d., only are available; whether there is a price control order to cover the full range of batteries for wireless sets; and, if so, why is the difference of 4s. 5d. allowed to certain makes of similar voltage.

Mr. Dalton: Wireless batteries are now in short supply, owing to the heavy demands of the Services, and it is necessary, therefore, to make use of the output, although small, of the higher-cost producers. Prices are controlled under the Prices of Goods Act, 1939, and those charged for both classes of battery referred to by my hon. Friend have been investigated and approved by the Central Price Regulation Committee.

Mr. Walkden: While I appreciate what my right hon. Friend has said, is he not aware that batteries are largely used by people in small homesteads who are in lowly circumstances, who cannot understand why good batteries cannot be obtained while there is a plentiful supply of inferior ones from firms of doubtful reputation? Cannot he make some adjustment on behalf of small cottagers?

Mr. Dalton: I am very anxious to get a fair distribution of whatever supplies there are, but the best batteries are required for the Services in a very great and increasing quantity. The less satisfactory batteries are less than 10 per cent. of the whole and they are better than nothing at all.

Fruit and Vegetables (Short Weight)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficulties encountered by retail fruit and vegetable merchants owing to the absence of any control over the delivery of short weight; and whether he will take steps to ensure the application of weights and measures regulations in this industry.

Mr. Dalton: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 4th October last to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Woodburn: As the effects of that answer were not very satisfactory in some districts, could my right hon. Friend arrange for inspectors to do spot checks here and there, in order to let wholesalers know that they are not immune from the law in delivering to retailers?

Mr. Dalton: I will look into that, but, in order to meet that request, it would be necessary to change the law, and there is not much time for that this Session.

Japanese Toys

Major Peto: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether Japanese toys manufactured since the war are coming into this country, particularly in the form of toys in crackers, or whether such toys, when marked "Made in Japan," are certainly pre-war stock.

Mr. Dalton: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "No, Sir"; the second part, therefore, does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH WAR MEDAL

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a further state-men regarding the award of the Star commemorating the period in time 1939 to 1943; and whether the amended regulations will permit of its award to the H.G., in view of the services rendered by that Force during those years.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): The answer to the first part of the question is "No, Sir, not yet," and to the second part, "No, Sir."

Sir A. Southby: Before coming to any final decision, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the strong feeling that exists


among men in the Services who, through no fault of their own, had to remain behind in order to train those who went overseas, that they should have something to show for the important work they did during 1939–43?

The Prime Minister: As I have said, if you widen the existing distribution of the 1939–43 Star you may easily bring in 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 more people, and that would greatly affect the value of the award to those who have gained it. There will be a British war medal which will be given over the whole area, but I cannot attempt to make any pledge in the matter. The question of the issue of this widely distributed medal will be one we can take up when the war is over.

Mr. Astor: Is the Prime Minister aware that over a year ago an Admiralty Fleet Order was put out defining which naval officers were eligible for the African Star, and that a subsequent Order said that no ribbons were to be issued? While the Army have had the African Star for over a year no naval officers have been able to wear it yet, and this has caused considerable dissatisfaction.

The Prime Minister: I am very well aware, but up to the present nobody has worn the two ribbons.

Mr. Astor: I am afraid I did not make myself clear. These naval officers eligible for the African Star but not for the other medal are not allowed to wear the African Star at all.

The Prime Minister: Only a small class is at present eligible—those who actually fought on shore. But if there are cases of those who have not received the African Star I should be glad to be informed.

Sir A. Southby: I am sorry to seem so persistent, but since the 1939–43 Star commemorates a period in time, does not my right hon. Friend consider that, in justice, all who served during that period should wear the ribbon?

The Prime Minister: If you went on like that you would give the ribbon to everybody in the country. All did pretty well.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE

Situation

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Prime Minister if he has any statement to make on the situation in Greece.

Mr. Martin: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that British forces appear now to be the only effective police authority in Greece, His Majesty's Government will assume responsibility for the holding of elections as early as practicable in Greece and for ensuring that they shall be as free as possible from all forms in intimidation or corruption.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister if he will advise General Plastiras that the plebiscite on the question of the Greek monarchy should be held before, and separately from, the general election; and if he will endeavour to secure effective United Nations supervision of this plebiscite as well as of the election, with the particular object of preventing interference with voters by known royalist sympathisers, who have been permitted, for whatever reason, to retain arms.

The Prime Minister: I should be glad if hon. Members would be good enough to await the statements which will be made on behalf of the Government in the course of the coming Debate.

Mr. Shinwell: As there are some urgent issues which require to be dealt with immediately, is the right hon. Gentleman taking note of the declaration by General Plastiras on two occasions that it is the intention of his Government to clear out the E.L.A.S. Forces from Greece; and do the British Government support him in that policy and intend that British troops and British arms should be used for that purpose?

The Prime Minister: I have indicated that I think it is better to await the discussion, when these matters can be dealt with in their proper setting.

Mr. Driberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give us some assurance that the specific points raised in the Questions on the Order Paper to-day will be covered in his statement? Otherwise it would be necessary to ask supplementary questions to-day.

The Prime Minister: It would be very difficult to ask supplementary questions when the answer that has been given is a request that the matter may be postponed till to-morrow. Therefore I will not be drawn into it.

Mr. Shinwell: As there is no guarantee that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with all the points involved in the Greek


affair, is it not permissible to put points to him now? Does he intend in the course of the Debate to deal with the declaration made by General Scobie with regard to the position of minorities in Greece, and was General Scobie entitled as a military officer to deal with political affairs?

The Prime Minister: I think he has done admirably. I read what he said and his impromptu remarks seem to have been singularly well chosen when replying to the applause of the enormous crowds that passed his headquarters.

Mr. Gallacher: Can we take it that the right hon. Gentleman's statement will be better balanced and more reliable than the one we had from him before the Recess?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member must not get too excited about these matters or he will fall into the danger of a Trotskyite deviation to the Left.

E.L.A.S. Representatives (Interviews)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Prime Minister on whose authority instructions have been issued that newspaper correspondents may not interview any members of E.L.A.S. forces.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister why newspaper correspondents in Athens were forbidden by General Scobie to interview spokesmen of the E.L.A.S. forces, although their opponents were permitted at the same time to circulate anti E.L.A.S. propaganda; and if he will urge all those now in authority in Athens, whether British or Greek, to endeavour in their public statements to promote a spirit of conciliation.

The Prime Minister: When delegates come through the lines they are guaranteed safe conduct by the Commander-in-Chief and it would therefore be quite irregular for him to allow them to see any persons other than himself or his duly authorised representatives. Such delegates remain under guard until their return to their own lines. While fighting is in progress it would obviously be undesirable for persons to cross into E.L.A.S. territory and in fact only International Red Cross representatives were allowed to do so.

Mr. Dugdale: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's not inconsiderable experience as a war correspondent himself, why

does he not trust British war correspondents to report fully, frankly and with a due sense of responsibility?

The Prime Minister: I am really not going to attempt to give a general measure of complete confidence to all war correspondents wherever they may be and from whatever country they may derive. I am always doubtful about correspondents who go from one side to the other, writing articles.

Mr. Driberg: How is it possible to reconcile the admirable sentiments expressed by the Foreign Secretary, who desired to see a democratic Government of all parties in Greece, including E.A.M., with the truculent remarks of General Plastiras about clearing E.L.A.S. out of Greece altogether?

The Prime Minister: I cannot be responsible for the day-to-day remarks which are made by the Greek Prime Minister. The head of the Greek Government is the Regent, Archbishop Damaskinos, and while I read the various opinions that are put in the newspapers from time to time, I cannot undertake to have the information available to comment accurately upon the statements of the Greek Prime Minister. I have every reason to believe that the present Government, the present dispensation, in Greece is extremely democratic; as a matter of fact, it is composed almost entirely of Republicans.

Mr. Shinwell: Has not my right hon. Friend encouraged General Plastiras to make these observations by his own truculent observations about bandits and all the rest of it?

The Prime Minister: I have sometimes been provoked, I admit, when I have seen the efforts made by some people in this House greatly to add to the difficulties of our troops.

British Casualties

Mr. Bowles: asked the Prime Minister the number of British casualties suffered in Greece since the Government used British troops in fighting Greeks.

The Prime Minister: The total casualties suffered in Greece between December 3 and January 6 (the latest date for which figures are available) were 2,101, of which 237 were fatal.

Mr. Bowles: Will my right hon. Friend remember that that is seven times as much as the British casualties in fighting the Germans in Greece last year?

The Prime Minister: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat the question?

Mr. Bowles: Does my hon. Friend realise that the British casualties he has just mentioned sustained in fighting the Greeks, are just about seven times as much as the British casualties sustained in fighting the Germans in Greece last year?

The Prime Minister: Our troops have been engaged in preventing a hideous massacre and have succeeded in doing it.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRREGULARITIES IN ADMINISTRATION OF AIR MINISTRY

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the Motion (Irregularities in Administration of Air Ministry) standing in the Order Book in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen and other Members; and if he is prepared to give time for a discussion of this Motion.

[That a Select Committee be appointed to investigate the allegations made in this House on 19th December, 1944, by the hon. Member for Mossley concerning irregularities in the administration of the Air Ministry.]

The Prime Minister: I shall be obliged to my hon. and learned Friend if he will put this Question down this day week.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATLANTIC CHARTER

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the recent statement of President Roosevelt has cast doubt on the genuineness of the Atlantic Charter, he will make a statement on the subject.

The Prime Minister: Far from any doubt having been cast on the genuineness of the Atlantic Charter, I note that President Roosevelt is reported to have declared on 22nd December last that its objectives
are just as valid to-day as they were in 1941.
However, he then went on to indicate that all the objectives of the Charter were

not likely to be attained immediately. I am in agreement with these statements.

Mr. Davies: Is there not a different interpretation put on the provisions of the Atlantic Charter in America from the one that the right hon. Gentleman has put on it in this country, that it does not apply to one-half the human race?

The Prime Minister: Immediately on returning, I made a statement about the application of the Atlantic Charter to the British Empire and India which was the result of very careful Cabinet discussion, and which has in no way been departed from, to the effect that the object and purpose and the principles of the Atlantic Charter were already being achieved by the process of extending self-government, which has long been in operation.

Mr. Martin: Will the right hon. Gentleman take an early opportunity of telling the House what parts of the Charter are valid immediately?

The Prime Minister: I really do not think there is any need to go into that. It has been very well described by the President as a standard of aims and an indication of the direction in which we are proceeding. It is not a law.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH WEAPONS (NEW INVENTIONS)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Prime Minister whether he will authorise the release of additional information to the Press regarding the production and employment of new British weapons, including aircraft.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have had a spate of information, and some experience recently of new German inventions; and is he further aware that the stream of new British invention appears to some people outside Government and military circles to be running a little dry?

The Prime Minister: Really I do not think we are obliged to keep up a steady flow of advance information about new British weapons and inventions. The Germans, it is true, boast a great deal about the coming terrors that they are going to inflict upon us but they do that to keep up the hearts of their own people. We have no need to plunge into such


desperate measures. We prefer to let our new weapons and inventions fall with full surprise on the enemy.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLISH GOVERNMENT, LONDON (RECOGNITION)

Mr. Stourton: asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that it still remains the policy of His Majesty's Government to adhere to recognition of the legitimately constituted Polish Government, at present resident in London.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Stourton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this decision of H.M. Government will hearten all those who believe in constitutional government, not only in this country but throughout the world?

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPS (SALT-WATER DISTILLATION)

Captain Strickland: asked the Lord President of the Council what steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to encourage research into the conversion of salt water into drinking water by demineralisation, evaporation or other processes; whether any effective and convenient method has been evolved; and whether it is proposed to make the fitting of the necessary apparatus compulsory on all sea-going vessels including their boats.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I have been asked to reply. His Majesty's Government have done extensive research into the distillation of salt water by demineralisation and evaporation, and apparatus designed by private inventors has been examined and tested. As a result, two types of fresh-water producer for life boats are now issued on free loan to shipowners. A third and smaller pattern for use in emergency rafts is in production. Sea-going vessels carry adequate supplies of drinking water for use on board.

Mr. McKinlay: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether there has been any protest from the liquor traffic against the provision of so much drinking water?

Mr. Astor: Is the Board of Trade using the filtering type as well as the distillation type?

Mr. Noel-Baker: This is not regulated by the Board of Trade but by my Ministry. We are using both types.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIFTS FROM MIDDLE EAST (PURCHASE TAX)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the difficulty of the Forces in the Middle East sending birthday and other gifts home owing to the high prices charged in these countries, with the further addition of purchase tax; and whether he will consider extending the concession of free of purchase tax to four parcels per year of a limited value.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, Servicemen overseas may already send home a limited number of gift parcels free of import duty and purchase tax, of a value not exceeding £8 in a year. I have reached the conclusion that some increase in this concession is justified, and after consultation with the Service Departments, I have directed that the annual limit is to be raised to £12. The question of the maximum number of parcels which may be sent home is under consideration.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Does the £12 mean the cost of the article purchased in the black market or the value of the article? What "value" does the right hon. Gentleman mean?

Sir J. Anderson: I cannot say anything as to the nature of the market in which these goods may be purchased. The value will be the value declared by the sender.

Mr. Walkden: If half-crown watches are being sent home and assessed as being worth £5, is not that an unreasonable figure?

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me the source of his information.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make on Business for this week?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): As the House is aware, we originally intended to allot two


days for the War Debate next week, but in view of developments in the political and military spheres, we thought that it would meet the general convenience of the House for the Debate to take place during the present week. Accordingly, the Business has been rearranged.
We propose that the Business for to-day and to-morrow should remain unaltered. To-day, we take the Second Reading of the Wages Councils Bill and the Committee Stage of the necessary Money Resolutions; and to-morrow, the Committee Stage of the Representation of the People Bill. In view of the importance and urgency of this Measure we hope that it will be possible to complete the Committee Stage to-morrow.
On Thursday and Friday, there will be an opportunity for a Debate on the war, which will arise on the Committee Stage of Votes of Credit for war expenditure.

Mr. De Chair: Could the Leader of the House say when it is proposed to have a Debate on the Select Committee's Report on the rebuilding of the House?

Mr. Eden: I propose to deal with that in my Business statement on Thursday.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1944)

Estimate presented, of further Sums required to be voted for the service of the year ending on 31st March, 1945 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 9.]

VOTE OF CREDIT (SUPPLEMENTARY), 1944 (EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR)

Estimate presented, of the further Sum required to be voted towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on 31st March, 1945, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; for relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under the control of any of the United Nations; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary

grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 10.]

VOTE OF CREDIT, 1945 (EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR)

Estimate presented, of the Sum required to be voted towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on 31st March, 1946, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; for relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under the control of any of the United Nations; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 11.]

Orders of the Day — WAGES COUNCILS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

12.2 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The first purpose of the Bill is to bring the Trade Boards Acts up to date and to rename the trade boards "wages councils." Many people might ask what is in a name, but as the purpose of the Bill is unfolded it will be seen that the change in the name not only widens trade boards legislation, but is a declaration by Parliament that the conception of what was known as sweated industry is past. The Bill also proposes to provide additional powers for establishing the Councils where voluntary machinery is inadequate or is likely to become inadequate, and reasonable standards of remuneration are not being, or are not likely to be, maintained. A third proposal in the Bill is to continue the provisions of Part III of Order 1305 for a limited period to tide over the transition from war to peace. I would ask hon. Members to refer to the Third Schedule to the Bill in order that they may see quite clearly what Part III of Order 1305 does.
Part I of the Bill, which is the first proposal, brings trade boards into line with later legislation. In this connection I considered whether I should proceed with legislation by reference. The intention could have been accomplished by proposing certain Amendments; but, after reviewing the situation, I thought it better to make a clean Bill, in order that the whole purposes in view might be clear to the House and to the country. Legislation by reference would have involved a series of complicated amendments to the two Acts of Parliament of 1909 and 1918. I thought the House would probably prefer a new Bill in which it could see all the proposals brought together. In saying that, I ought to add that the underlying principles of the Trade Boards Acts remain and that many of the provisions are not substantially changed. I will deal in outline in my statement and in referring to the Clauses, with such changes as are involved.
The great change is in Part II of the Bill which introduces a new principle in legislation of this kind. I felt that this was imperative if we were to prepare for the transition from war to peace and to provide stability afterwards. I would emphasise the word "stability." Those of us who had to handle industrial problems from 1918 to 1926 will value the introduction of any Measure which will give stability in this field during the very grave difficulty of transition. The rapid inflation which operated and, what was worse, the terrible deflation, made it almost impossible in those days for any negotiators in any branch of industry to adjust their conditions to meet the violent changes which were entirely out of their control. Therefore, if we prevent—and I would also emphasise this point—the temptation to imagine that we can get quick, unmeasured and violent changes in the wage system, we shall provide a great brake, and will force economic considerations upon those who handle finances and industry at that very critical moment.
The third proposal is directed to the immediate post-war period and is intended to prevent strikes breaking out where non-federated firms, thinking they are free from moral obligations that others have entered into—

Dr. Russell Thomas: Why "moral"?

Mr. Bevin: All voluntary industrial agreements that are entered into are moral obligations.

Mr. George Griffiths: Would my right hon. Friend say that again?

Mr. Bevin: All voluntary industrial agreements that parties enter into are moral obligations, and they rest entirely on honour to be put into effect. Perhaps somebody may think he can gain an advantage over his opposite number in industry by taking advantage of the labour market to get a competitive advantage. Let him compete by all means on a basis of efficiency, quality and production, but not on the basic standard of wages agreed to between parties as being that on which the industry shall run. At the end of the last war we tried to cover the point with a Wages Regulation Act, which broke down. We came to the conclusion that this House, by its declaration, and by the very simple procedure which I will explain later, could succeed in holding the position and


helping to maintain the most priceless thing in this country, something which has carried us through the war without loss of our liberties, the great voluntary system of negotiation in the industries of this country.
Perhaps I may deal for a moment with the history of the trade boards system. It was introduced in 1909 by the present Prime Minister. Of all the things he has done I know of none better for the downtrodden masses of the country than the basic legislation then introduced. That Act was the sequel to a prolonged agitation and the reports of several Committees of both Houses of Parliament. It was designed to combat the evil of sweated wages. It was accompanied, in the speeches of opposition at that time, with gloomy prophecies of disaster to the industries concerned, but in the process of time it has been shown that all the industries brought under the trade boards have been far more prosperous afterwards, in consequence of the very organisations that ensued on both sides, than they were under the old laissez faire conditions that preceded the legislation.
The principle involved in this trade boards legislation was very important. Automonous boards were introduced, representative of both sides of the industries concerned. The plan has proved completely workable and avoided State—or perhaps I should say Parliamentary—regulation of wages. I cannot believe, and I do not think that many hon. Members in this House believe, that Parliament could ever satisfactorily adjust the actual wages to be paid to the people in respective industries, in view of the change in conditions that continually takes place in those industries. Therefore the legislation took a middle course. It adopted the principle of legal enforcement, together with the creation of autonomous boards to say what the wages which were to be enforced should be. It is interesting to quote what the present Prime Minister said in his speech in introducing the Bill:
The House will not only be dealing with a grave social evil but will also take another step upon that path of social organisation on which we have belatedly entered and along which the Parliaments of this generation, of whatever complexion, willingly or unwillingly, will have to march.
In the first instance it had a very limited application. Tailoring, paper-box making,

lace finishing, and chain-making were the first trades dealt with. It was the first step taken to answer Thomas Hood in his "Song of the Shirt." Provisions were, however, made for other trades to be added by the Board of Trade, which was then responsible for this Act. Before 1913, prior to the last war, three more trades were added. The original boards had power only to fix general minimum rates of wages for time work and piece work; they could not fix overtime rates, nor could they fix remuneration. Looking back, it is interesting to note their first proceedings. In the main the rate fixed was 6d. an hour for men and 2¾d. to 3¼d. an hour for women. Happily we have proceeded some distance since then. After a long period of prosperity in the 19th century, with all the wealth then accumulated, to find that 2¾d. was the legal minimum wage for a women makes one wonder what conceptions of life people really had.
During the last war trade boards were largely superseded. There was introduced the Wages Order of the then Ministry of Munitions, which covered such a wide range of production that it cut right across trade board machinery. The Reconstruction Committee of that time had to consider what should follow, and recommended that the trade boards machinery should be used mainly to protect the wages of women workers after the war. But coincident with that, or just following it, came the Whitley Committee, which gave a rather wider and deeper consideration to the problem and recommended that the trade boards legislation should be applied to all trades not sufficiently organised to enable joint industrial councils to operate effectively. A second recommendation they made was very valuable. It was that trade boards should be given extended powers to enable them to deal with matters other than wages which were commonly dealt with by collective bargaining and to provide for any voluntary industrial agreements.
In 1918 the Trade Boards Act was amended with the intention of giving effect to the recommendations of the Whitley Committee. The power of trade boards to fix rates of wages was widened in certain respects, but the Act did not give the wide extensions recommended by the Whitley Committee. It did, however, provide for powers to fix overtime rates, special basic time rates for piece


workers and guaranteed time rates for piece workers.
There was a great development immediately following the War. In 1919 and 1920 30 new trade boards were set up. Then came the great depression, but notwithstanding this and notwithstanding the slowing up in the work, and a violent controversy in this House about the slowness of the trade boards in reducing wages, the trade boards weathered the storm and, if I may say so with all respect to the economists of the time, did a great service to the nation in holding the foundation and stopping a worse débâcle than actually occurred. The advantage of the trade boards has been that they have settled matters in the light of the special circumstances and conditions of particular trades, and within their limited scope have used their powers successfully.
The next extension of the powers of trade boards came in the Holidays with Pay Act, 1938. That extension gave them power to fix a week's holiday with pay—six working days. They have done their job well within the powers which Parliament gave them. Out of 52 trade boards 48 have exercised these powers. Of the four boards which have not done so, two are largely in home working trades, which made it very difficult to fix arrangements, and the other two—and this is important—have built up voluntary agreements and have not thought it necessary to have statutory provisions. Following the Act of 1918 special Acts were introduced based on the principle of the regulation of wages by law. In 1924 the Agricultural Wages Act was passed, in 1938 the Road Haulage Wages Act, and in 1943 the Catering Wages Act, of happy memory. There is another very important power in the use of which I want to encourage trade boards, and I am instructing the department concerned in my Ministry with a view to stimulating them and making them more efficient. They can and do consider matters referred to them by the Government or by Government Departments, and give advice on questions of training, the resettlement of disabled persons, and the recruitment of young people. Further, an interesting experiment is going on with the cutlery trade board. They are inquiring into working conditions and methods in the cutlery industry, in conjunction with the factory department. I hope they will do

their work so thoroughly that they will be able to tender advice which will help to put that important industry on a proper footing and make it of more value to the country. These functions, however, have not been exercised to the extent which I should have liked and which was intended and felt to be necessary when the present Prime Minister introduced the original Act in 1909. He said at that time:
The trade boards set up under this Bill will exercise other functions besides their particular statutory functions of fixing a minimum rate of wages. They will be a centre of information and I hope they will become the foci of organisation. As centres of information they may, as time goes on, be charged with some other aspects of the administration of the work of the trades, with the question of the training of the workers, and they will also be able to offer information upon the subject of unemployment. They will generally be not merely boards for the purpose of fixing the minimum rate of wages, for that is their primary purpose, but boards designed to nourish as far as possible the interests of the workers, the health and the state of each particular trade in which they operate.
That really depends upon the administration behind the trade boards, and I am determined to put this Department on such a footing that that part of the work will become effective as soon as I can get the staff. It is vital that these boards should not only deal with the question of fixing wages but should be encouraged to advise on all the problems associated with their industries. That will become more vital as time goes on. I should mention that under a decision of the Government dealing with the man-power budget they will in future be the collectors of information affecting their industries, in order to afford the Government a review of the prospects. I intend as far as I can to make that side of their work far more effective than it has been hitherto.
Let me now turn to a further point in connection with the purposes of Part I of the Bill, which is to bring the legislation up to date and in line with modern requirements. We have renamed the boards Wages Councils, and they will be given a general power to fix remuneration, and remuneration includes the fixing of a guaranteed weekly wage. I am sure that no one will now object to their having that power. The restriction hitherto placed upon them as to the number of holidays they can give will be removed; they will be able to deal with that question on its merits. The change of name


will, I think, remove the stigma of being associated with sweated trades, so that by the passing of this Bill we can turn our backs upon that bit of our industrial history.
The situation will differ considerably from that at the end of the last war. Then the slogan was "Business as usual." Now, concentration has played a big part in all the domestic industries. Then, controls either of labour or of raw materials were not extensive. To-day, we are dealing with a nation completely mobilised to fight a totalitarian war. Then, it was a case of release from the Forces as quickly as possible. To-day, another war has to be finished after the one in Europe. Then, the war industries had been largely carried on in their home districts. Now, families have been divided; people have been compelled to leave their homes; evacuation, housing and all kinds of problems exist, all of which will affect industrial stability fundamentally. Where such great changes in order to get back to peacetime conditions are involved, regulation of wages and conditions will be of primary importance.

Mr. G. Griffiths: The Minister said there will be a guaranteed weekly wage. Will that be the case if men work only four days, instead of six, because they cannot have full employment?

Mr. Bevin: What the Bill provides is power to fix a guaranteed wage. The boards will have power to do that whereas at present they can only fix a minimum hourly rate.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Will the boards have power to fix the conditions as well?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, they can fix the conditions too. Stability is also needed for the men returning from the Forces, and must be of such a character as will give them confidence in getting a fair deal when they enter civilian employment. As I have said in this House before, our great trouble at the end of the last war was not so much with the people who had been home working in the factories, but with the men who came back from the war and were completely disillusioned with what they found when they got home. The turmoil that arose out of that and the inability to settle were responsible for the enormous upheavals at that time.
It is vital to the country, however, that the fabric of voluntary agreement and joint organisation, which have been of inestimable value during the war, should be maintained. On the unions' side they will have to face a period of reorganisation of industry. On the employers' side many adaptations will have to be introduced, and the State might not be able to carry through these matters without the assistance of the joint industrial relations machinery. Therefore, we cannot afford to let anarchy creep in and weaken these joint arrangements.
The House may be interested to know the difference between the number of wages arbitration awards during the last war and during this war, which, I think, is the best indication of the enormous growth between the two wars of this joint industrial relations machinery. In 1914–1918 there were nearly 8,000 wages awards made by the Committee on Production, independent arbitrators and ad hoc courts of arbitration. During this war the number of awards given by the National Arbitration Tribunal has been less than 700. In the last war the majority of awards were not incorporated in the industrial agreements. In this war they have been dealt with in relation to the agreements which makes the changeover much easier. Therefore, the Bill provides for a period of five years during which employers will be under an obligation to observe no less favourable terms of employment than those settled by agreements between organisations and trade unions. In other words, for five years there will be, under this Bill, a complete national fair wages clause in order to maintain stability. That is really what it amounts to.

Mr. Summers: If the Minister will allow me, I would like to ask one question in relation to the point he has just made. I should like him to say why he has made a period of five years for Part III of the Bill.

Mr. Bevin: The reason is that I have tried to estimate what would be a reasonable period. After the last war the time of resettlement and the great industrial upheavals ranged from 1918 to 1926, and I cannot imagine that we shall be through our difficulties after this war under five years. In fact, if I may say so, I think the creation of the psychology of five years'


stability is very important to the country, and I have selected that period because I think it is vital that any Government—I do not care who is elected by the country—must have five years' reasonable stability after the war if they are to settle the job decently. That is my opinion, and I hope the House will support me in it because, as I have said, it is of absolute importance. There is a wider implication—

Sir Geoffrey Mander: Why not for ever?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot legislate for ever. Perhaps my hon. Friend with his great knowledge and prophetic outlook could, but I cannot. I think if this House settles the matter for five years it must be left to the Parliaments of the day to say whether a change should be made. That is only reasonable.
Clauses 1 to 3 set out the circumstances in which wages councils may be established. In Clause 1 the Minister retains the power granted to him under the trade boards legislation to set up statutory wages machinery where he is of opinion that no adequate voluntary negotiating machinery exists and where, having regard to the standard of remuneration, it is expedient that such machinery should be set up. That is the basis of the existing power that the Minister has.
I have already explained that the reference to remuneration is wider than that to rates of wages because it has a different legal meaning and gives wider powers to the board. In Clauses 2 and 3 there is a very important principle which I hope the House will accept unanimously. Hitherto, the State has not intervened to prevent joint voluntary machinery from breaking up, even though it was clear that the results would be that wage standards would become unduly depressed and that intervention would eventually be necessary. The State has had to stand aside and allow organisation to break up and conditions to deteriorate to a low level before action could be taken. I want to emphasise the very important point that no one industry can break up and its conditions be depressed without inevitably dragging others with it, and I regard this as the most important preventive part of the Bill. Therefore, it gives the Minister power, where he sees that happening, to intervene and to set

up a wages council, but only after there has been an independent commission of inquiry. The commission can recommend a wages council only if it reaches the opinion, after full inquiry, that voluntary machinery is inadequate, or will become inadequate, and that a reasonable standard of remuneration is not being, or will not be, maintained.

Sir Lewis Jones: If I may interrupt the right hon. Gentleman I would point out that Clause 3 gives him the power to refer the matter to a commission of inquiry, and Clause 2 lays down the condition for a joint application by employers and employees representatives on a joint board, or council, for the setting up of a wages council. Would the Minister say why it is proposed to use Clause 3, when the same power exists in Clause 2?

Mr. Bevin: They may not make joint application. That arrangement may have broken down. They may disagree. It may be that the position has reached such a state that decent employers will throw up their hands hopelessly. I have seen that happen over and over again, and what I want to do—I will make this point quite clear—is to make the industrial relations machinery work in such a way that the good employer can lead the industry and not be held up by the slowest and bad employer. I think that is absolutely right. If the Minister sees any cracking or breaking up, and no one will make a joint application, can he afford to let, not only that particular industry go down, but others to be dragged with it? Under this provision he can intervene and cause an inquiry to be made.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Before the Minister leaves the five-year standstill provision, I would like to ask him how that will affect Government servants.

Mr. Bevin: I will come back to that. At the moment I am reviewing the Clauses, and that point comes up again. During this war over 40 industrial councils have been established. They have been made effective largely because the industries have been under control. The State has virtually been in control of the distributive trade, and trades like that, but I do not know whether control will go on or not. That is not in my hands. It may be that control will go,


and when the crisis comes shall those councils be allowed to break up? I have provided two alternatives. They can make application jointly or, alternatively, if the Minister sees it breaking up he can intervene. I think it would be a tragedy if what happened at the end of the last war occurred at the end of this. At the end of the last war all this great work was broken up almost in an hour. And remember that in many of these industries there are thousands of women. One of the great difficulties in maintaining joint industrial machinery with women is, as everybody who organises women knows, that marriage, which involves leaving the industry, makes it necessary virtually to reorganise every three or four years. They have no permanent occupation in industry, and though you may build up these conditions there is the danger of them breaking up and falling away to the detriment of the good employer. I have had many strong representations from these councils on these lines with the object of giving their industries a foundation upon which to operate after the war. The Essential Work Order has assisted them during the war, but that is entirely inappropriate for peace-time conditions.
I have already explained that in all these cases a commission of inquiry would have to be set up, and I propose that it should be constituted by three independent members, two persons representing employers and two persons representing workers. These commissions will be ad hoc commissions and, in this respect the provisions differ from the Catering Wages Act which relates to one industry, and therefore dealt with a permanent body. I propose in this Measure to establish ad hoc commissions as and when they are required. Commissions of inquiry will not deal with wage rates. All they will deal with is the point I have mentioned where the machinery is inadequate. They will deal with the matter when there is danger of existing machinery breaking up, or where the Minister ought to be advised to establish a wages council, and where, if existing machinery is allowed to break up, the standard of remuneration would be endangered.
One other power is important; that is, I propose that the Commission may recommend the setting up of a central

co-ordinating committee where co-ordination of the work of two or more wages councils seem to be desirable. This was impressed on me in the distributive trades particularly, where there are particular conditions that must be worked out in various forms of remuneration. I thought it was necessary, when there were nearly 2,000,000 people involved, and where such things as wages and hours and so on operate over the whole field, that I should take power to set up a co-ordinating committee over a general range of industries to deal with the common things which were applicable all through, apart from the actual grades of wages and so on that may be effected. Then there is the usual procedure. They will have to publish notice of matters referred to them, consider written objections within a prescribed period and so on, all of which is in keeping with the present machinery. The laying of orders before the House for 40 days is exactly the same as now applies in the trade boards legislation. I have also provided that where an industry develops to such a point that it feels that it does not want any legal protection it can apply for the abolition of the wages council and proceed on a voluntary basis, if it so desires. There is one other important point in Clause 7. All the powers will be related to the workers instead of to a particular trade. That is intended to be more embracing, to be wider than dealing with a particular trade. In this I have followed the Road Haulage Wages Act and the Catering Wages Act which the House has already adopted.
I have been asked by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) about Government servants. The policy of the Government is that they will follow, in practice, what is laid down, as they do now. But the Bill does not apply to Crown servants, and in that respect they will be in the same category as those under the Catering Wages Act and the Road Haulage Act.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: What about local government servants? Could my right hon. Friend make that point clear?

Mr. Bevin: Most local government servants are covered by voluntary machinery now. Under Part III where they are operating with other trades then they


accept Part III and the district or whatever are the trade rates of wages are applied.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I understand the position of the Crown servant under Clause 19 but I am rather concerned about his position under Clause 2. That is to say, if he is not covered by it may we take it that the Government, as a matter of policy, will apply the five years stabilisation period to the Crown servant which the Bill imposes?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, the Government accept that. They will follow that, they have guaranteed it. The powers set out for the Wages Regulations Orders are the powers which have been usually followed in regard to the publication of notices, objections, the time period and the rest. I have provided in this Bill for a wages council to be able to determine a cash value for such matters as board and lodging provided by the employer, which are referred to in the Bill as specific benefits or advantages. This provision is new to trade boards. It follows the Catering Wages Act, 1943, where the value of those benefits or advantages is authorised to be taken into account by the council when assessing remuneration to be paid to the worker. The procedure for making proposals however is on the same lines as the Trade Boards Acts and the Catering Wages Act. I have put this in this Bill deliberately. If the Minister is to make wages councils universal I cannot limit my conception purely to certain factors. There is a wide range in which these special conditions have to be met and I do not want any of my successors to have to come back to Parliament for an amending Act, or on the other hand for them to be hamstrung in the application of a wages council because this provision had not been made.
The temporary conditions I have already referred to. I saw in some papers that I was pegging wages for five years. I can only imagine that the journalist who wrote that had a substantial war bonus and was hoping that I was seeing that it was fixed for five years. What we are really doing is allowing the voluntary machinery to operate unhindered either up or down during that five years. I am absolutely opposed to any attempt to lay down a fixity of wages. The value of money changes, circumstances change,

and there must be a free operation of the voluntary machinery under part III. But then, when the agreement is honourably made, no employer is allowed to break it or destroy it during the five years. That is the whole principle. I repeat what I said earlier, that it is really a national fair wages clause for five years. Under part III there will be no State inspection or legal penalties. That is not intended. The trade unions must do their job. I do not want to take their job on. They must look after their members and the employers' federations must also co-operate to see that these agreements are honourably kept. Therefore there are two steps to be taken. One is to establish that the agreement is bona fide. That means going to the Industrial Court. The Minister cannot take on the job of saying that a particular agreement is bona fide. If the court says it is an agreement that ought to be honoured then it becomes a part of the contract of service, and the money can be sued for in the ordinary court, as can be done now under a contract of service.

Mr. Hynd: Has my right hon Friend considered whether this might not lead to considerable and costly litigation in deciding the interpretation of an agreement before it can be decided whether or not it has been broken?

Mr. Bevin: There is no costly litigation before the industrial court; it is the simplest process. One goes to the industrial court to establish an agreement. That is a perfectly simple process. Then, when the agreement is established and a firm does not pay, that is where the litigation comes in. Therefore one sues for the money, but the actual determination of the agreement is done by the court. I have referred this to the Industrial Court instead of the National Arbitration Tribunal because the tribunal is a war-time institution and the Industrial Court is covered by the Industrial Court Act, 1919, and is a permanent institution.
There is one other point I would like to make, regarding the numbers affected. In 1939 there were settled by joint collective agreements wages and conditions covering about 10,000,000 workers. They did not all pay their contributions, I am sorry to say, but the actual agreements covered about that number. These figures include the national and local government ser-


vants. I have already said that there have been 40 joint industrial councils set up during the war, including seven industrial councils for the distributive trade. I assume that in peace time there would be about 2,000,000 to 2,500,000 workers covered by those councils. Then there are the numbers covered by the present legal machinery, which brings the total to just over 15,000,000. I felt that if industrial wage machinery was provided, either by the Minister because the conditions warranted his action, or by the joint application of the parties, or by the Minister if he saw that voluntary machinery was breaking down, we could reasonably say we had made provision for the protection of the overwhelming majority of our people. Therefore I commend this step to the House. Beginning as it did as far back as 1909, I think this is a natural development that ought to flow from the end of this war, and create that feeling of confidence and stability for the re-creation of our industries following the terrible trial through which they have gone.

12.58 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his Bill, which I think is an inevitable development of a long process in this country, of State regulation on the one hand and the co-operation of voluntary associations on the other. We have a history of which, in some respects, we can be proud, but I am bound to say that our industrial history is one of which we should indeed be ashamed. We were the first to face the enormous changes of the Industrial Revolution at the end of the 18th century. We bore the brunt of it all. We really made ourselves the martyrs for mankind, and the conditions which were imposed by grasping, greedy and ambitious industrialists of that time were too appalling for words. The developments since—I wish to give everybody their due—have taken place largely because of the attitude of good employers, who have felt, on both purely humanitarian grounds and on grounds of economic efficiency, that decent conditions should be given to workpeople.
Secondly, we have had enormous help in the last century from humanitarians who were entirely outside industry. I think of the Earl of Shaftesbury, I think

of Samuel Plimsoll—one could give a number of names of people who on purely humanitarian grounds, without regard to economic considerations, have given a good deal of thought to the improvement of the conditions of life of people in employment. But, thirdly, I must say that the big brunt of the fight has fallen on the trade union movement in this country. Bitterly opposed as it was in its early days, it had to fight for its life for over half a century, but it has doggedly maintained as one of its functions looking after the conditions of work of employed people. It has also given thought to the honour and dignity of their position in industry, to which I attach very considerable importance. We have, in the curious British fashion, developed a system of industrial regulation which I think compares very favourably with that of most other countries; but it has been haphazard and unequal. Some industries have been under the care and supervision of the State far longer than others, and some have been hardly under the care and supervision of the State at all up to the present, the catering trades being one outstanding example. I hope that the House will support my right hon. Friend in this Bill, because this is in line with the march of events.
It is over 140 years since we had our first piece of industrial legislation—and that really was not industrial legislation: it was for the protection of Poor Law apprentices. Our system of industrial legislation began by growing out of the Poor Law—and a bad Poor Law system it was at that time. We have widened the range of what was called State interference very considerably, to cover more people, and, as the trade union movement has grown stronger and the employers' organisations have grown stronger, we have been able to build up a system of vountary negotiation which has been a powerful assistance in improving both the efficiency of industry and the standard of life of the people employed in industry. The trade boards were called for precisely because there was neither effective organisation of employers or effective organisation of the workers. I remember those discussions when I was a relatively young man. I remember how certain trade unions were doubtful about the wisdom of trade boards; in fact, some were certain that the establishment of trade boards would interfere with the development of


the organisation both of employers and of workers. Experience has proved that they were entirely wrong. I should think now that in some of the old trade boards you have the most effective system of voluntary negotiation between the employers' organisations and trade unions.
We are now at a stage of preparation for the period immediately after the war. During this war there have been enormous developments in industrial relationships, enormous developments in the influence of employers' organisations and of trade unions in the councils of the State as regards industrial policy. Out of that experience we should have learned something. It would, in my view, be disastrous if, having built up this structure on a basis of good will, we marched backwards after the war instead of marching forward. One wants to see some assurance of stability for some period after the war. That, I think, this Bill provides. I would like to see wages eliminated altogether as a competitive factor in industry. One of our great difficulties in connection with out export trade is that we have to face the competition of ill-paid labour abroad. Ill-paid labour, broadly speaking, is inefficient, but if it is very ill-paid and there is some degree of efficiency, it is always a menace to the people who desire and deserve higher standards of life.
I do not think that success in the sphere of business ought to depend on a man being able to get orders because he can beat down wages. The emphasis ought not to be on wages as the conditioning factor of trade: it ought to be on superior economic efficiency and efficiency of management. I believe that this Measure will perform a very great service in putting final responsibility for industrial prosperity on the shoulders where it rightly ought to rest. I have no objection to the legal enforcement on all of voluntary agreements properly arrived at. I wanted this, as my right hon. Friend said, 25 years, ago. I was met in many trade union quarters with opposition. I still think it is right that protection for the good employer does really, in the long run, safeguard employees.
We shall need this kind of machinery after the war. We shall be faced with enormous difficulties after the war. I do not believe that we are going to have a smooth and easy transition from fighting to peace. It is important to realise that

where we stand in the scale of prosperity after the war depends upon the level of efficiency in our industry, depends very largely on the good will of the people who are employed in industry, depends upon their prosperity, and depends upon the co-operation of man with man, and not upon the dominion of master over man. This may well prove to be a beacon for many other countries. This may set a good example abroad. I hope that it will be studied by the International Labour Organisation. I do not believe—and I have said this on many occasions—that we, as an industrial nation, can profit out of the poverty of other nations. A higher standard of life for people abroad gives a better chance for a higher standard of life and greater prosperity for people here. I welcome this Bill not only for its importance to the people in this country, but because, as I said, I regard it as a beacon which should shine all over the world, which might help us to increase not only prosperity at home, but international co-operation for world prosperity.

1.11 p.m.

Mr. Summers: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), I welcome this Bill. It falls into three parts, but it would seem more appropriate, for purposes of discussion, to divide it into two parts: that which affects trades where there is no collective negotiation, and that which affects trades where there is collective negotiation. I use that phrase "collective negotiation" because it is to my mind much better fitted to the circumstances than the traditional phrase "collective bargaining." I hope that when the two sides of industry sit down to review their problems of wages and conditions, it will not be regarded merely as a bargaining matter. Some better phrase, therefore, would seem to be appropriate. I subscribe to the sentiment voiced by the Minister, that we shall need legislative help to preserve stability in the transition from war to peace production. There can be no doubt that earnings will fall. There will be some piece rates that will no longer be applicable; there will be shorter hours, in the sense that overtime will be less widely worked. Apart from that, there will be a reduction in family incomes, because many women, under peace conditions, will not desire to continue to work as they have done during the war. Prices


may rise, and there may be an element of unemployment. There will certainly be many difficulties associated with the transition period, so that we may look forward to extremely difficult conditions. If to these facts which I have mentioned, there is added the fear that advantage may be taken of the increased labour market to reduce wages, we may have a state of tension which might reach breaking point and vital upheavals in industry would then follow. On those grounds, I support this attempt to cater, as well as we can, for the conditions which may follow after the war.
With regard to the parts of the Bill relating to cases where there is no practice of collective negotiation, there are, to my mind, at least five points to which I hope the Minister who replies will refer. Whether they will need changes on the Committee stage or merely explanation, we shall see when the Minister replies. The first point concerns the Minister's discretionary powers. I take no exception to the Minister's desire to have the means to initiate a wages council where he finds that the machinery is inadequate or is in danger of breaking up. But the Bill, as drafted, does not support the comment, which I welcomed from him this morning, that if he does take the initiative he is obliged to put his proposal to a commission of inquiry. I understood him to say that such an obligation was imposed on the Minister, but I would draw attention to one or two points in the Bill which at any rate suggest a contrary view. If the wording which I shall refer to has a different meaning from that which I shall attribute to it, I hope that that will be made clear in the winding-up speech. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, dealing with Clause 7, says:
Before making an Order, whether the Order is made on his own initiative under paragraph 2 (a) or in pursuance of a recommendation by a commission of inquiry. …
That suggests that if it is on his initiative, there is no commission of inquiry. Again, Clause 5 says:
Before making a wages council Order, whether in pursuance of a wages council recommendation or not,
This would suggest that a wages council Order can be made without a wages council recommendation, and the only opportunity for that would appear to be the Minister's initiative. In Sub-section (5) it is stated:

Where the Minister makes a wages council Order, he shall publish it in the prescribed manner, together with the report of any commission or inquiry relating to the Order.
Evidently there may be a commission of inquiry relating to it or not. I ask that the meaning of the quotations I have made should be explained, because one naturally accepts the unequivocal statement which the Minister made this morning that he does require, if he takes the initiative, to put the matters before a commission of inquiry.
The other features where the Minister's discretionary powers require elucidation are, first, where he has power to modify the recommendations of the wages council if, in his opinion, the modification is unimportant. That would appear to give great latitude for doubt whether, in fact, a modification is important or otherwise. Is a penny an hour an important or unimportant modification in a recommendation? If we might have some elucidation of that point it might save time at a later date. Again, the Minister has power to ignore an objection to a recommendation if, in his view, the objector is unaffected.
The second point which I would ask the Minister to deal with relates to Clause 16 and the special defence open to employers. I read Sub-sections (1) and (2) half a dozen times, and, each time I read them, I came to different conclusions on what they mean. It is to be hoped that we can have a clear explanation, so that we may judge whether, in fact, they are desirable or otherwise. Then there is the question of the powers of interrogation of officers appointed under this Bill. This point was debated at some length on the Catering Wages Act, and, so far as I can see, there is still the undesirable possibility of potential victims being interrogated alone, without any family or professional help, by an investigator who has power, under this Bill, subsequently to become the prosecutor. In that connection, the Catering Wages Act did go some way to relieve the fears then expressed by introducing a proviso that, in the interrogation, nothing need be said which would be incriminating, and I ask the Minister why, if the provision which he made in that Measure was deemed desirable, it should not be introduced in this Bill in the same context.
Then there is the question of the powers of officers to prosecute—that is, officers who are themselves investigating the


cases. It is difficult to follow the reasoning of the Catering Wages Act on this point, but there was an assurance given by the Solicitor-General in the Debate on 1st April last, when an Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Dr. Peters), and it was very clearly stated by the Solicitor-General that subsequent proceedings would, in fact, be taken by the legal department of the Ministry of Labour rather than by the non-legal officers who had done the investigating. If one had read that assurance correctly, one might ask that a similar assurance should be given in this Bill.
Lastly, on this part of the Bill there is the question of publicity given to the wages councils, which is of the greatest possible importance, particularly as so many, hitherto unaffected by trade boards, are now to be affected by wages councils, and the fullest possible publicity should be made available, presumably, through laying the proposals on the Table of this House.
With regard to the other important part of the Bill—Part III, which deals with these trades where collective negotiation is practised—I asked the Minister, in the course of his speech, what prompted him to pick a period of five years for the period during which legal enforcement of voluntary agreements should be set up, and he gave his reasons, but the right hon. Gentleman did not allude to the fact that the terms of this Bill do not become operative, as I understand it, until the current national arbitration Order expires. One rather inferred from the Minister's comments that the five years was a period after the cessation of fighting with Germany, during which it was proper to have legal methods of enforcing stability; but I would suggest that it may well be a considerable time after the end of fighting with Germany that the national arbitration Order will still be in being, and that it may well be eight years from now before the conditions brought about by this Bill come to an end. If account is taken of the period from the expiry of the national arbitration Order, it may very well be a greater number of years from now than is envisaged by the mention of five years in the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman who preceded me said he was quite prepared to see—I imagine, as a permanency—the legal enforcement of voluntary arrange-

ments arrived at by people properly constituted to do so. I would not go so far as that, but would point out that there is a discrepancy in legal enforcement under this Bill as between the two sides. It is open to the Minister to prosecute an employer who does not observe the proper rates and conditions come to in the district. Judging from the Minister's gestures it would be more accurate to say that it is open to anyone adversely affected by an employer not following the local conditions to take action arising out of that fact. Therefore, there is a deterrent, and a very proper deterrent, on an employer who declines to follow the local conditions properly arrived at, but, on the other side, the responsibility for the trade union to see that their part of the bargain is honourably observed has no deterrent behind that obligation beyond the general well-being of their organisation. Apart from the general principle of compelling people to observe an agreement to which they are not parties, there does seem to me to be a great responsibility resting upon the trade unions, their officials and the members of trade unions, to see that, in fact, the arrangements come to by their representatives, jointly with the employers, are honoured once the thing is signed.
We have had too many instances, even under war conditions, of the representatives of labour not being supported by their constituents in proper arrangements that they have made. Before, under peace conditions, one is asked to support the principle of legal enforcement of voluntary arrangements, I suggest that we need some experience of the ability of the responsible leaders of labour to see that their followers adhere to arrangements that have been made. Under war conditions, there is a great patriotic urge to give no trouble but follow their leaders and so forth, but, in peace, it is more difficult, particularly in the troublesome peace conditions which the early years may bring about, when it will be more difficult than now for responsible leaders of labour to see that the arrangements they make with employers are accepted loyally by their adherents. I should prefer to see more experience of their ability to do that before one is asked to assent to the principle of legal enforcement as a permanency. For that reason, and because one cannot foresee what conditions will be like four, five or six years


hence, I would ask that the underlying idea of Part III of this Bill should not be imposed on the Statute Book for a longer period than is thought appropriate for the immediate purposes which the Government have in mind.
I have referred to the period from now until the expiry of the National Arbitration Order, which precedes the five years under this Bill. I would suggest, as at present advised, that three years would be a more appropriate period—a period four or five years from now—and that this would be quite sufficient for this purpose, and I suggest that the Minister should not bind the House to accept rules and Regulations for a period whose conditions it is extremely difficult for us to foresee.
With these requests for information and explanation, I join with other hon. Members who have given a general assent to the motives underlying this Bill. The Minister has many things to his credit in the handling of labour affairs during this war. When the war is over and this Bill is, as I believe it will be, on the Statute Book, there will be many, I am sure, who will give him additional credit for his attempt to foresee difficult conditions and to do what lies in his power to make Regulations to deal with them.

1.27 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey Mander: I should like to add my strong support for the Measure now before the House, which is of far-reaching importance. It is going to affect for the better the lives of millions of people, men and women, all over the country, and I believe it is going to be extremely helpful in effecting that peaceful transfer from war to peace in industry that we all desire to see. So far as the Liberal Party is concerned, we are, naturally, delighted to see this Measure brought forward because the original proposal was made by a Liberal Minister—the present Prime Minister—and we have been, for a long time, strongly in support of the principle of a national minimum wage. It is a matter of personal satisfaction to me, because, as a back-bencher, I have for many years introduced Bills containing principles which are now inserted in this Measure, and I am, therefore, delighted to see the Bill brought forward.
The Minister said that the Bill would cover, in all, something like 15,000,000 workers, but there is a point about that which I would like to put to him. I have pressed the Minister for some time to bring forward proposals for a national minimum wage, and this Bill pretty well covers that ground. It is his reply, and I think it is a very good one, but it does seem to me that there may be a gap in cases where the wages councils have not been in operation sufficiently long to fix a wage. There may be cases where wages can be paid at a lower rate than is desired. I would venture to suggest, therefore, that it would be desirable to incorporate a Clause in this Bill to the effect that it should be illegal to pay any person in this country a rate lower than the lowest rate fixed by any wage council. If that were done, it would make it impossible for any person to receive the very small wages that were sometimes paid in the past. There have been cases in the old days of small employers, with two or three people, who have been somewhat elderly workers, and they have paid them far below what is a reasonable wage. We want to cover everybody, and I earnestly ask the Minister to consider whether an Amendment on these lines could not properly be incorporated.
My right hon. Friend went into certain history of these questions in the past and I would venture to go back still further. The principle of a minimum statutory wage is not a new one in English history. There were Elizabethan Statutes passed which were operated by Justices of the Peace authorising the fixation of minimum wages. The Measures were disused in later times, and in 1812 when the Luddites were pressing their views, one of the things they wanted in particular was that these old Elizabethan Statutes should be made operative for the purpose of fixing wages. In dealing with this question we ought to pay a word of tribute to Robert Owen, that far-sighted industrial statesman who, more than a century ago, put forward many of these ideas which have now been accepted as sensible by all good employers and which the State is now making the law of the land. I would like to ask my hon. Friend who is to reply whether it is possible under this Measure to set up a wages council for such a body of persons as domestic servants? Obviously people of that kind find it very diffi-


cult to organise. They cannot get together and take joint action. It seems to me to be eminently a case where action on these lines might prove to be desirable and I would ask my hon. Friend whether it is possible, at any rate, even if action is not taken. I imagine that the answer must be in the affirmative.
Reference has been made to the under-cutting that sometimes takes place by bad employers. One knows of examples of joint industrial councils which have met together and have agreed on conditions and then, to the annoyance and disgust of both sides, certain black-legging employers have deliberately paid lower rates and under-cut the whole standard and in that way have been able to get business which perhaps the good employer could not get. That is a monstrous state of affairs and I am very glad that this Measure is going to protect the good employer and maintain a decent standard of wages for all persons in industry. I feel sure in this connection that such a joint industrial council as the lock, latch and key industry in my constituency, which has raised the point in the past, will be delighted with the proposals that have been brought forward.
In regard to Part III and the fact that it is to go on for five years, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers) was a bit cautious and thought that the period should be rather limited. Personally, I want Part III to go on as long as possible. These principles are sound and will improve the industrial life of this country if they are made a permanent part of industrial legislation. I notice that in Clause 7 reference is made to "any matter that may be brought forward." Would my hon. Friend throw a little more light upon what is meant by "any matter"? There are certain things that I would like to see included. Does it, for instance, permit discussions to take place and agreements to be reached with regard to welfare matters and canteen arrangements? Would it be possible to discuss the length of notice of engagements? There are many cases where it has been the custom in the past to have an hour's notice or a day's notice, and would it be possible for agreements to be reached by which a week's notice must always be given? That would seem to be desirable.
I would like to see, if possible, wages councils permitted to discuss the setting up of joint machinery in the industry for dealing with appeals against dismissals. I mean an advisory body, because the decision must rest in the end with the management. There is always the fear and feeling about victimisation and that because a man's politics are not liked, because he is thought to be an agitator and because he is not sufficiently submissive, he may be got rid of for non-industrial reasons. If you have a tribunal, even of an advisory nature, which is representative—a sort of jury—of employers and employed it would be a very strong deterrent to any employer or manager who wished to act on victimisation lines. He would have to come before this jury and present a case and if the legislation that I have in mind is passed and agreements are reached, he will take very great care that his case is based on strong industrial grounds and on no other grounds whatsoever. That is a wise measure for any employer to take voluntarily whether the Government adopt it or not, because it gives a status and position to the worker in the industry which he does not always feel that he possesses.
In commending this Bill wholeheartedly to the House, I would like to mention that some years before the war my right hon. Friend and I were associated as pioneers in a certain part of the industrial field and I am very glad on this occasion to be able to pay this small tribute to him for the magnificent Measure which he has brought forward to-day. It will, I believe, be a permanent memorial of the splendid efforts that he has made in the industrial field for the working people of this country.

1.38 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers) appeared to be somewhat dubious about getting trade union members loyally to abide by a decision of the Whitley Council. Judging by the decisions of the joint industrial councils, the workers seldom kick over the traces, but we have many cases of firms withdrawing from the joint industrial councils in order to escape their obligations. Where workers have kicked over the traces you usually find that they are not organised bodies with any capable leaders, and that has been the case, generally speaking, throughout the war. The


Minister of Labour has certainly given us an excellent exposition of the various State efforts at stated periods to deal with the all important subject of wage conditions. The Minister's vast experience of industrial negotiations has certainly stood him in good stead in his present position; every Measure emanating from his office has been to the advantage of the country and I sincerely hope that this latest Bill will soon be placed upon the Statute Book.
I have had some experience of trade boards. In one case a trade board was very successful, because the employers on that board were determined that they should set up a proper standard of condition in their particular occupation, and thereby eliminate those who conducted sweated operations. In another trade board, unfortunately, the employers carried out a policy, which was declared as "masterly inactivity," which held up rates for a considerable time until the appointed persons had to urge all sides to come to an agreement. The appointed persons on trade boards invariably hesitate to take any action whatever. Their business is to endeavour to conciliate and get the two sides to arrive at agreement.
This Measure is one which should be welcomed by all who do not wish to see a return to what happened after the last war, when wage cuts were the order of the day. The purchasing power of the people was diminished, and unemployment, poverty and misery followed as the only consequence. This Bill seeks to do what trade boards and joint industrial councils have failed to accomplish. Both bodies have certainly done useful work in the past to some extent, but they failed in certain respects. Trade boards, as the Minister explained, only fixed minimum rates of wages; they did not fix a guaranteed week. Joint industrial councils failed when certain firms and associations withdrew to escape their obligations to pay the rates that were agreed. The rates were not enforceable by law and decent firms, feeling in honour bound to pay the rates, were handicapped by their competitors. I have several cases before me at the present time. One particular joint industrial council is in a very difficult position because members feel that their decisions are not being enforced. An important association recently withdrew from the council on the instructions of

its annual conference until such time as agreement is made compulsory upon all engaged in the retail trades forming this particular group. Another association also withdrew, and the reason given was that the wage scale applied only to a certain section of the trade, while traders outside the organisation were not compelled to observe the rates.
These cases demonstrate the present need for this Bill, and it is good to know that joint industrial councils, generally speaking, are strongly in favour of such amendment, for the very reason that it makes possible whatever rates are fixed to be legally enforceable. And the fact that such bodies representative of both employers and workers welcome the action of the Ministry of Labour should convince the House as to the importance and necessity of this Bill.

1.44 p.m.

Mr. Molson (The High Peak): My hon. Friends of the Tory Reform Committee and I most heartily welcome this Bill. We feel that the three features of it are like different shaped joists, which, together, are going to reinforce a building in danger of collapse when the present war-time state of affairs comes to an end. In the first place, there is the bringing up to date of the existing trade board legislation. I suppose that there have been very few new ventures on the part of Parliament in endeavouring to regulate industrial conditions in the country which have proved such a remarkable success as the trade board legislation, originally introduced by the present Prime Minister. It has not brought about the collapse of the industries which at that time depended upon cheap and indeed sweated labour. For the reason given by Mr. Balfour in that Debate, in many cases the industries have, in fact, benefited by the improvement in the wage conditions which have resulted from the legislation. Mr. Balfour, whose speech I was looking up this morning, said:
The result of raising wages was not in many cases to increase the price. The whole machinery of production might be improved. …
This has, in fact, turned out to be the case. Those industries which existed upon cheap and inefficient labour have been obliged to reorganise themselves and, with an improved remuneration of the workers, those industries have become more efficient and more prosperous.
Now, however, after the passage of 35 years, our whole idea of labour legislation, with ideas of a guaranteed minimum week's earnings and longer periods of holidays with pay, necessitates the old legislation being brought up to date. I congratulate the Minister upon having not just amended the old legislation, with all the evils that result from legislation by reference, but on having introduced a new Bill and given a new name to this method of wage regulation, so that in this single Bill it will be possible to see exactly what this structural wage machinery is, which will ensure a certain minimum rate of remuneration to people engaged in an industry.
In the second place there is the logical extension of the old principle in cases where a joint industrial council now exists. There have been during the war many cases where industries have set up joint industrial councils. In the majority of cases that was made necessary under the Essential Work Order, but it is quite obvious that when the war comes to an end and the conditions—like the Essential Work Order—which have made those joint industrial councils necessary, also come to an end, there is great danger of this existing machinery being ended in the general chaos which may exist. Therefore, I feel that the Government have been wise to look ahead and to make certain that this voluntary consultative machinery should be under-pinned by legislative enactment. It is now, I think, common ground everywhere that we desire to see, in as many industries as possible, collective bargains arrived at voluntarily by negotiation on the part of representative bodies on both sides. In the past, it has only been when that kind of machinery did not exist, or when it has completely broken down and disappeared, that the Minister of Labour has been empowered to set up a trade board. How much better, where you have these agreements at present in existence, to enable the Minister of Labour to intervene earlier, in order to prevent the break-down from taking place. We can now all agree that the existence of a certain legal minimum wage is a most satisfactory basis upon which higher agreed wages can be built by joint negotiating machinery. If it is possible, by means of this legislation, to ensure a certain minimum remuneration within a certain industry, it does make it much easier for the two parties to come

together and to arrive at a general collective bargain regarding, not only remuneration but other conditions of employment in the industry.
In the third place, I particularly welcome the provision of this Bill which will continue for five years Part III of Statutory Order, 1305. This matter has a long history. I was looking up yesterday a Debate which took place in the last Parliament when a Private Member's Bill was introduced to give effect to the principle. It was the hon. and gallant Member for North Bristol (Captain Bernays) who introduced the Industrial Councils Bill, and it was my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hamilton Kerr) who seconded the Second Reading of that Bill, the purpose of which was virtually the same as the purpose of these particular provisions in the Bill now before the House. It provided that where any particular rate of remuneration and conditions had been agreed to by a substantial representative number of employers, on the one hand, and of trade unions on the other hand in an industry, those conditions should be enforcible throughout that industry; that the "blacklegs" on the employers' or employed side, should not be allowed to work under more unfavourable conditions than had been agreed to in the collective bargain arrived at by representative bodies on both sides. That Bill was supported by a large number of my hon. and gallant Friend's fellow Liberals, and also by a considerable number of progressive and enlightened Conservatives, such as the present Minister of Food, the present Minister of State, and the present Under-Secretary for the Dominions. Unfortunately, however, there was a coalition between the rigid bureaucracy, representing the trade unions, and the right wing of the Conservative Party which defeated the Bill. But now, after there have been some years of war, and experience has been gained under the very able administration of the Ministry of Labour by my right hon. Friend, and I am glad to find that both his colleagues among the trade union officials, and my own colleagues in the Conservative Party have moved forward, and come into line with those of us who, in February, 1934, divided in favour of a Measure of this kind. The effect can, surely, only be beneficial to everyone, that when an agreement has been reached by represen-


tative bodies, there shall be no undercutting of those wage rates. It is not a fixing of wages, but it goes a long way to stabilise and preserve the principle of collective bargaining.
When we look ahead to the post-war period, when we shall be confronted first with the immense difficulties of transition from war to peace and then the intense competition of the countries which at present are not in a position to produce, it is absolutely vital that we in this country should have industrial peace. That, I believe, is more dependent on the preservation of the principles of collective bargaining than upon anything else. I believe, therefore, that this Bill will be a really effective Measure to promote a smooth transition and one which is likely to result in the preservation of peace in industry.

1.56 p.m.

Mr. Cove: We are to-day dealing with a Measure of immense social, economic, and even political importance. It is quite clear and is now generally agreed, I believe, that one of the basic facts of all the trouble of unemployment is a low purchasing power by the working classes of this country. If we are to maintain a prosperous Britain, then it is quite definite, I think, that we must try to ensure that the purchasing power of the workers is raised to, and maintained at, ever higher levels. There is, indeed, no health or prosperity for the export trade, unless there are health and prosperity inside our own country. We must be customers as well as sellers, and one of the reasons—there are other reasons I know—why our export trade has been adversely affected has been the lower purchasing power, the meagre customer power—if I might put it that way—of our own country. Therefore it seems to me that any Bill which deals with the wages of the 14 or 15 million workers of this country is a Bill of major importance and of major consideration.
We have been living, economically, during the war period in an unreal world. I should characterise our prosperity, economically, as being largely fictitious. Economically speaking, war, by and large, is waste and while there is the appearance of prosperity in this country, if we delve a little deeper I think we shall find that all is not as it seems. For in-

stance, there is a general impression that the wage rates of the workers in this country during the war have been greatly raised. That is not so. The wage rate in this country, taking the workers as a whole, has not by any means kept pace with the increase in the cost of living. The Treasury figure given in the White Paper on the Budget was, I think, 141. If we add indirect taxation to that, the cost of living in this country has gone up to 154, far beyond, as a matter of fact, the rise in the rates of wages. I will put it this way, the wage rate has lagged far behind the cost of living. But, all the same, total earnings have increased over the general body of workers.
In some industries total earnings have not increased, but over the whole field, by and large, they have increased. I think it is germane to the issue to find out why they have increased. They have not increased because of increases in wage rates; they have increased for several other reasons. They have increased because there has been a shift from the lower paid rates of peace-time industries to war industries. The metallurgical and engineering industries generally pay higher rates of wages than a number of other peace-time industries, and there has been a shift of workers into those industries. Then, a larger number of people have been employed; there is virtually no unemployment now so that family income, as a whole, has increased.
The biggest factor of all is that more and more during the war people's earnings have come to depend upon overtime. This has become one, of the biggest factors in keeping up the level of income of our people. Very reliable estimates are given that the present income from overtime amounts to £450,000,000 to £500,000,000 a year. I mention these points in order to show that when the war is over many of these conditions will disappear. I should imagine that many women will go out of industry, either compulsorily or voluntarily. Overtime will largely cease and with it, of course, the money that comes from that source. There will be a shift again from the relatively higher paid war industries to the relatively lower paid peace industries, and there will be a combination of factors which will tend to depress the total earnings of the working classes.
With the end of the war, with the accumulation of these things passing out, as it were, there will be a substantial reduction in the total purchasing power of our people. That is the situation we have to face up to, and which this Bill makes some attempt to meet. I commend it because it does that, but I would not be true to myself if I did not say that I cannot believe that under the existing system of private ownership of the basic industries there can be any solution of the real problem connected with purchasing power in Britain. These councils will work for individual industries. I believe that it is essential that we should have what I would call a collective approach, a collective economy. Even with all the councils and the good will you can create I do not believe that in the competitive post-war world we shall be able, on the basis of private ownership, to maintain and raise the standard of living of our people. I am certain that the same essential problem will remain embedded deeply in our present economic system, namely, the problem of effective demand. No council, no wages board; will solve that problem: it can only be solved when we have a collective economy, running for collective purposes. The great problem of the age is to put into the hands of the masses of our people what, technically, we can produce.
I notice that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Production have told us that production, with millions of men away, has increased by 40 per cent. We have added tremendous power to our productive capacity. But the problem is not a technical one of production, it is not one of distribution within the capitalist system; it is a great social problem. Capitalism has not yet solved the problem of unemployment, and I do not believe it can. Before the war 4,00,000 families in this country had incomes of less than £2 a week. The fact that the wage rate has not gone up means that that problem remains. Side by side with this what has happened on the profit side? Profits take more out of the national income to-day than they did before the war. Not only that but capital itself has become more and more concentrated. These are the problems we shall have to face, and while I welcome every effort to stabilise purchasing power and wage councils I would be untrue to myself if I did not say that the capitalist sytem has been erected on

sand and that the only rock on Which to stand is a complete change in our social and economic system.

2.9 p.m.

Sir Lewis Jones: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) in all he has said to-day, but I would ask him to examine the wage system in the iron, steel and coal industries, in particular during the last few years. There he will find how the basic earnings in those industries have been improved, which belies his statement about the failure of industry to increase wage rates for our working people. I approach this Bill as one who has had many years' experience as an official of a joint industrial council which has negotiated wages and conditions of employment in the iron and steel industry in this country. I approach this Bill as one who is a very firm believer in powerful trade unions. I remember some years ago an American economist, who was investigating labour conditions in this country, expressing amazement when I told him that I believed in 100 per cent. organisation from trade unions in every industry. I told him my reason was that as secretary of an employers' organisation I knew that when representatives of organised workers put their signatures to an agreement the trade unions were powerful enough to see that the agreement was carried out. I mention that to give my credentials, as it were, in approaching this Bill.
I am as keen an advocate of voluntary organisation as the Minister of Labour said he was to-day. I think it is essential that we should encourage voluntary organisation in industry among work-people and employers. Therefore, with these credentials and my tremendous belief in trade unions I must confess that I view this Bill with a certain amount of concern. To-day, the Minister gave us a history of the Trade Boards Acts. I realise that the objects of the trade boards were to provide what might be termed a social background to industry, to provide a social safeguard in certain sweated industries. Now the Minister proposes to extend the power of these trade boards to include and deal with industrial matters. I do not know whether the time in which these changes will have been brought about will be ripe and whether, later, we shall find that these proposals to set up statutory wage councils will fit into


the industrial machine generally. But assuming that this Bill is going through—and I will vote for it whatever my doubts may be—I would like to call attention to a few matters which have not been touched upon by the Minister. Under the Trade Boards Acts there sit with representatives of the employers and employees what are termed "appointed members," who are appointed by the Minister of Labour. I am satisfied that these members have justified their appointment with these boards, because they have performed a very important function. Very often they have enabled a board to come to a decision on important social questions when employers and employees have failed to agree.
Now, however, the proposals the Minister is putting forward extend the power of these boards to include industrial problems as distinct from problems of a social character. At the same time, the Minister is allowing appointed members to exercise their present power over this new and wider field. I suggest that this means the introduction of compulsory arbitration into the realm of industrial matters. I look on it as a departure from the fundamental conception of the purposes of the boards themselves, and there is a danger throughout a large section of British industry of the substitution of the principle of compulsory arbitration for that of free negotiation on purely industrial questions. If it is morally and ethically right to have appointed members on these wages councils, or extended trade boards, why not take it further and have appointed members in the mining industry, for instance, in numerical strength in relation to the employers' and employees' representatives? You might also have consumers' representatives to enter into discussions.

Mr. Molson: I do not quite follow the hon. Member's argument. In what way is this different from the principle of trade boards?

Sir L. Jones: What I suggest is that the trade boards deal with the social aspect of an industry. If there is any change at all, it is an extension of the powers of the old trade boards. The Minister is asking the trade boards to deal with wider and more important industrial matters. I say that, just as we do not have appointed members in our normal negotiating

machinery in other well-established industries, we do not want appointed members in these extended trade boards. I believe that voluntary organisation is a principle which the trade unions are wedded to, just as are employers' associations, and if you are going to superimpose on the wage councils the influence and the votes of appointed members you are limiting or reducing the freedom of voluntary organisation. I believe that the power the right hon. Gentleman is taking to set up these new councils is unnecessary. He has already got it under the Trade Boards Act.
I feel that he has overstepped the mark. He is seeking powers which are already in his hands. Even when he forms these councils he still retains these appointed members, and the same argument that I used against their continuation in dealing with industrial matters applies in this case. The change proposed is fundamental. It is proposed to transfer to appointed members, for the first time in the history of labour legislation, the responsibility of determining contractual relations between employers and employed, a responsibility which under trade board machinery has been confined to cases where it can be shown that statutory intervention is necessary having regard not only to the organisation but also to the wages and conditions prevailing in the industry. The new councils will permit such statutory intervention in industries even where there has been no suggestion of bad conditions or low wages and I fancy that this is organisation just for organisation's sake.
The superimposition of appointed members savours of totalitarian rather than democratic methods. By interfering with voluntary organisation you are going to weaken the development of trade unions and employers' associations, as has happened in Germany. I am confident that free voluntary organisation, even trade unionism, will not grow or develop under statutory wage councils. The Minister was careful to say that in time it might be possible for the parties to a wage council to make application to go back to the formation of their own joint boards or negotiating machinery. I suggest that, in so far as under the Bill trade boards are to be extended to deal with industrial matters, appointed representatives should be excluded entirely and that in the discussion of industrial matters the only


people who should be negotiating across the table should be the employers on one side and the trade unions on the other. We do not want the interference of third parties. What would they think in the mining or engineering industries if it was suggested that appointed members should be nominated by the Minister of Labour to sit on negotiating boards? The employers would sooner trust the trade unions and the trade unions would sooner trust the employers. The Minister said that it was a provision of the Trade Boards Act that the total number of appointed persons must be less than half the combined numbers of employers' and employees' representatives, an arrange-men which ensures that the parties mainly responsible for the industrial matters that came up for discussion were likely to have a preponderent influence. But in the First Schedule I find no indication that the combined representatives of employers and employees, whether on the wages councils or on the central co-ordinating committee, may not be exceeded by the number of appointed members. [Interruption.] The three only refers to the commissions of inquiry. There is no suggestion as to the numbers of appointed members on the other bodies.

Mr. Bevin: In the First Schedule
(a) not more than three persons chosen by the Minister as being independent persons.

Sir L. Jones: But the Minister does not state definitely what the numbers are to be.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Three would not be a majority.

Mr. Bevin: I should like to help the hon. Member. In most trade boards the minimum is roughly about 20. In the case of these wage councils there will be not more than three, who are independent.

Sir L. Jones: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. May I now refer to the constitution of the commissions of inquiry? It is proposed that there should be three independent persons, two employers' representatives and two employees' representatives. I think again that with the appointment of independent members the trade representatives on the commissions will be overweighted. It will be possible for three independent persons with one employer or one employee to

give decisions against the majority of the industrial representatives.

Mr. Bevin: These commissions are not negotiating bodies.

Sir L. Jones: I take it that the Minister would appoint employers or trade union leaders from a panel. Obviously he would not appoint representatives of the particular industry but, as is generally the practice, he would have a majority of those who understand industry whether from the employers' or the trade union side. If the Minister is not prepared to consider giving the majority votes to the industrial representatives, I hope that he will so vary the Schedule, as far as the Commission is concerned, that the trade unions and the employers' organisations have an equal representation with the appointed members.
With regard to the continuation for five years after the war of the section of the Conditions of Employment Order dealing with agreements, I understand that one speaker to-day criticised that continuation. Anybody who has followed that Order and its operation will know what a tremendous thing the Minister did for industry when he brought it in. When I mention British industry, I use the term in an all-inclusive manner as meaning employers and employed alike. The continuation of this section of the Order for five years has been criticised, but I would welcome its continuation not for five years but for 10 years, because, if it is wrong for inferior employers to impose low wages and bad conditions to-day, to-morrow and for the first or second year after the war it must always be bad. I have made slight criticisms of some small matters in the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will be prepared to meet some of them. Apart from them, I give my blessing to the Bill and hope that it will become law.

2.32 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: I am afraid that I cannot follow the hon. Member for West Swansea (Sir L. Jones). He got up to bless this Bill. He welcomed it, and then for 30 minutes he did nothing but pull it to pieces. If that is his welcome to the Bill, God alone knows how many Amendments he will put down to it when we get into Committee. If his suggested Amendments are carried, there will be no Bill left. I want whole-


heartedly to support the Bill. I read an article by Hamilton Fyfe in the "Daily Herald" a few days ago about the conditions of the miners in 1884 in Northumberland and Durham. The conditions that prevailed, according to this article, showed the slavery that my people had to undergo 100 years ago and have had to undergo since. The conditions to-day show what a tremendous advance there has been. I support this Bill because I like the idea that where trade unions and employers agree on certain conditions, those conditions have to be applied by everybody in the industry. The hon. Member for West Swansea missed this point. It is the great point in the Bill, because there are a tremendous number of employers, as the hon. Member knows, who are always trying to get out of agreements that are made by employers and employees. We have had any amount of that kind of thing in the mining industry. The hon. Member has been negotiating for 25 years, and I have taken a little part in negotiations in the mining industry. Sometimes the ink has hardly dried on an agreement arrived at between employers and employees before some lawyer has tried to tell the employers, "You can get out of this by so-and-so." We have had to spend thousands of pounds because employers have tried to get out of agreements.
To me the best thing in the Bill is that all employers in the future will have to pay up and not try to get out of agreements as some of them have done. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture here. A case arose the other day in connection with the wages of agricultural workers. In my constituency they had to take a farmer to court because he had been keeping a lad and paying him less than the agreed wages. The wages should have been 65s. and the lad got 25s. The result was that the farmer had to pay the lad £80 in back wages because a wages agreement had been made.
With regard to local authorities, I sit as a representative of the urban district councils on the National N.A.L.G.O. and we discussed this question with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. The local authorities have agreed that this Bill is a good thing because there are some local authorities still that are not good employers. There are

some which make attempts to get out of agreements. They will be included in this Bill and will not be able to do that. The local authorities have decided unanimously to support this Measure. I thank the Minister of Labour for bringing it in, and the trade unions in all the industries welcome the fact that no employer will be able to blackleg in future, but that they will all have to pay up like the best employers do. I will support the Bill through and through and keep an eye on the hon. Member for West Swansea when he brings his Amendments in.

2.38 p.m.

Sir George Schuster: I am grateful for the opportunity of saying a few words because I want to express a somewhat different view from that which was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Sir L. Jones). I want, in fact, to express unqualified congratulations to my right hon. Friend on this Measure. While I am congratulating him, may I add a word of appreciation of those who prepared that most excellent little handbook on Industrial Relations? I have found this of the greatest possible value, and of interest too as showing us how the Minister has been following out a completely consistent policy. In this Measure, as I see it, he is just cleaning up a remaining corner that is left untidy. I am speaking as one who carries responsibilities in connection with distributive trades. Therefore, I am speaking from an experience different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea, who has been concerned with the much better integrated iron and steel industry. Speaking from my experience in distributive trades, I consider this Measure not only to be a good Measure, but to be absolutely indispensable. It has received strong support from the Retail Distributive Trades Conference. The conference recently passed a resolution saying:
We pledge our support of the Bill to the Minister of Labour. We trust the Government will regard the Measure as one of primary urgency in order that it should be placed on the Statute Book before the close of the present Parliament.
The resolution also calls attention to the fact that the Measure is in accordance with earlier recommendations made by the Retail Distributive Trades Conference itself which were recorded in a White Paper


on wages, hours and conditions of employment published in June, 1939. Therefore, I welcome the Measure as one which is really indispensible.
I would like to say a word too in reference to what my hon. Friend said about "appointed" members on the wages councils. I understand that it is the official view, which is confirmed by my own friends who have had great experience of dealing with trade boards, that in fact the two sides of the trade boards, in the main, decide what is done. That is borne out by the official figures, and it might be worth while to give them. I understand the official figures show that decisions by the 52 trade boards were reached as follows: 37 by agreement, five by votes of employers and appointed members, nine by votes of workers and appointed members, and one in which the workers abstained from voting and the decision was taken on the vote of the employers. If 37 out of 52 decisions are reached by agreement, that is pretty good evidence of how this machinery works.
There are certain details in the Measure which I hope will be accorded further consideration. One point has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers). I am a little alarmed by the procedure laid down in Clause 17, which gives the official, who may be the prosecutor, the opportunity to force individuals to incriminate themselves in declarations beforehand. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is familiar with the point, as it has already been discussed in the Debates on the Catering Wages Bill, and I am wondering whether the Government are satisfied that they are not introducing a dangerous principle.
I am content however to leave these and other points to the Committee stage, and I repeat that I welcome this Measure and shall give it my unqualified support.

2.45 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): I cannot help remembering the time some two years ago when I had to wind up a Debate on the Catering Wages Bill. The House will probably remember that the wrath of a great number of my hon. Friends descended upon me for what they told me was a provocative speech. Now we have what I might term a placid and agreeable atmosphere

of benign approval from all round the House for the Bill. I would like to thank hon. Members sincerely for the way in which they have welcomed the Bill and for the very kind words they have spoken about my Minister. The Bill is one of a number which we have presented, relating to plans and arrangements we have made for dealing with the difficult period of resettlement.
I would define it very shortly as a Bill falling into three classes of service. The first is that it proposes to bring trade board legislation up to date, which we have wanted to do for a long time, and to rename the trade boards wages councils. That will bring in the idea of a joint body working together. I might suggest that that is a curative service. Secondly, we want to provide additional powers for establishing councils, where voluntary machinery is inadequate or is becoming inadequate or where reasonable standards are not being or are not likely to be maintained. One might call that a preventive service, and there has been a little criticism of it to-day. Thirdly, the Bill will continue the provision of Part III of Order 1305, whch has worked so well throughout the war. I would call that a temporary stabilising service.
I would like to thank all those who have given, out of their experience, support of the Bill. We have had a very valuable contribution from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) and also from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie), who has had great experience, having been a member both of trade boards and of joint industrial councils. We have had support from the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), who spoke on behalf of his colleagues in the Tory Group to which he belongs. He rather inferred that the Bill which he supported in 1934 was the same Bill as that which we are discussing to-day, but I am afraid that he is not strictly accurate in that respect. None the less we welcome his enthusiastic support. We had support from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). It is something to have gained support from him. He does not like to give support indiscriminately in this House. I do not think he will expect me to follow him now into the question of the real figures of the cost of living or into a debate on private enterprise versus nationalisation, which he en-


deavoured to start in the course of his remarks. I understand from one of my colleagues who speaks occasionally at the week-end that that is likely to be a topic at the next general election. We had a very valuable speech from the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster), speaking from the angle of the distributive trade. I was very glad to hear his welcome of the help which the appointed members are likely to give on the wages councils. We had enthusiastic support also from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton who came in to represent the Liberal Party on this occasion but who has now left us again. He claimed that the Bill really was entirely his. We do not want to rob him of that source of gratification but, of course, it is not the same Bill as the Industrial Councils Bill which he was interested in some time ago.
We had modified support from the hon. Member for West Swansea (Sir L. Jones)—enthusiastic support for Part III and some concern with regard to the appointed members. I hope that the concern which he showed will not be justified and I am certain that he hopes that it will not either. I would say to him that I agree entirely that voluntary organisation is best. Where possible we mean to encourage it. It is only where voluntary organisation is breaking down or is likely to break down that it will need underpinning by means of wages councils. I agree with him also that we must show the very greatest care as to whom we choose as the appointed members on these wages councils. They will have the greatest influence. I believe, and confidently expect that their influence will be for good and that they will bring to many small trades a wider atmosphere than those connected with the trade closely might otherwise have. The hon. Member for Walsall quoted figures to show in how many cases the agreements are reached between the two sides of the trade boards—which will now be wages councils—without the intervention of the appointed members. That is the case and we hope that it may be extended. It is interesting to note when one sums up the number of decisions that have been taken by means of the appointed members, to see how often they have supported employers and have supported the workers, we find that, over the last 20 years, those times are approximately equal.
We then had an important speech, one which I very much welcomed, from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers). I would thank him for his support of my Minister and for his wise words. He raised some important points with which I would like to deal. With regard to whether Part III should last for five years, three years or some other period, he was answered very categorically by my hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea. I think my hon. Friend was not in the House at the time that answer was given so I hope he will read the words in HANSARD which my hon. Friend used on that occasion. I suggest that this is really a matter for discussion on the Committee Stage and if my hon. Friend feels deeply on the matter no doubt he will put down Amendments and we can discuss them there. With regard to the powers of interrogation which he raised, I certainly agree to look at this question of incrimination, in the light of what was done in the Catering Wages Act, with a view to introducing some safeguards, if necessary. I thank him for drawing my attention to the matter. With regard to powers of prosecution, which was another point which he raised, he is quite right in saying that our general practice is for the legal department of the Ministry of Labour to conduct proceedings and not for the inspectors to do so. It is our intention to continue this practice under this scheme.
He then raised the question as to whether it was true, as appeared on reading the Bill, that inquiry had to be made before one of these wages councils, was set up. I would like to make that position clear. Under the Trade Boards Acts under which we live at present, the Minister can set up a board if he is of the opinion that the machinery is not adequate and wages are unduly low. There is no obligation to have an independent inquiry, though one is usually held of course if the matter is challenged. This position is maintained in the first part of the Bill, where it is just a matter of bringing trade board legislation up to date. It is in the section dealing with the new principle which the Bill introduces, and which I described as a preventive measure, namely the question of setting up a council where the machinery is, or is likely to become inadequate and the rates of remuneration are likely to fall too low, that we have introduced as a safeguard


into the Bill the idea that the power cannot be exercised by the Minister to appoint wages councils direct. The Minister must refer the matter to a commission of inquiry for report and he can set up a council only if the commission recommends it. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend on that account.
With regard to another question he raised, as to the variations which the Minister may make, I would point out that those variations are only of a very minor character and not such as might mean any adjustment of wages. I would say one or two words before I sit down on the subject of Part III of the Bill.

Mr. Summers: Would the Minister like to refer to the question I raised in regard to Clause 16 in order to give us an interpretation of Sub-sections (1) and (2) which some of us might find difficult to understand?

Mr. McCorquodale: I really would ask my hon. Friend not to press me on that point. This is highly legal and technical language. On the Committee stage we will give a very full description of the powers under that Clause. They are all taken from existing legislation and there is nothing new about them. I have a long brief in front of me, provided by my legal Department, but I must confess that it is not easy for me to understand it. If I read it out perhaps the House would not understand it at all! Perhaps my hon. Friend will wait until the Committee stage.

Mr. Summers: My hon. Friend can take it that we are satisfied with that promise, and that I shall welcome any observations he may make on that occasion.

Mr. McCorquodale: I should like to say a word about Part III of the Bill. It has been suggested in some quarters outside, though not inside the House, that this part of the Bill pegs wages. It does nothing of the sort. It places no restriction whatever on the variation or modification of any agreement or decision which has established recognised terms and conditions, or upon the freedom of the parties concerned to proceed to abitration if they wish to do so. If they desire, parties can proceed to vary an agreement or a decision by negotiation in the ordinary way or they can agree to go to arbitration on any matter affecting terms and con-

ditions of employment and thus establish new conditions and new recognised terms and arrangements. Arrangements for modification or adjustment of agreements are not affected in any way by the Bill. It is important to understand that fact. If an agreement ceases to have an effect for any reason, and nothing replaces it, there will be no recognised conditions, and, in consequence, throughout that time there will be no obligation upon an employer under the Bill. Nothing that the Bill does will prevent proper negotiations for the raising or the lowering of wages when the parties think fit.

Mr. MacLaren: To lower them?

Mr. McCorquodale: When the parties think fit. The other point is how Part III of the Bill can be put into operation. It should be clearly understood that the worker, or a trade union acting on his behalf, cannot take an employer to court with a claim for a payment alleged to be due, unless the question of compliance with the obligation has first been reported to the Minister and then has been the subject of an award by the industrial court. A question cannot be reported to the Minister by an individual worker but only by his trade union or by an employers' organisation. We cannot have a whole mass of irresponsible cases brought up, flooding the whole machinery. Then the question may be settled satisfactorily by the normal methods from the Ministry. If, however, it is not so settled, it will then be referred to the industrial court and the decision of the industrial court will be binding and will be part of the terms of the contract. Therefore, it is only when an award of the industrial court has been given that it becomes open to a worker—any worker or trade union acting on his behalf—to take a claim to the county court for recovery of payment due.
I do not know whether there are any other points to which hon. Members would like me to refer. We have had so much praise and so little criticism that there does not appear to be any difficulty. I would like, however, to make one or two remarks of a general nature. I am convinced that as regards industrial relations and, indeed, all our industrial affairs, the transition period, which may well last for five years or more, will be of the most vital importance to our very


existence. Our men and women will be coming back from the Forces, and from other war service, into industry, and their settling down to the humdrum life in the factory or workshop will not be easy for them in any way. They are bound to feel strange at first, maybe awkward, out of place, and impatient sometimes, and they will need much care and sympathy, and intelligent handling by the managements if all these difficulties are to be smoothed away and they are to settle down into normal life.
I believe that one step we have taken during the war is going to mitigate this difficulty very much. I refer to the introduction of personnel managers and welfare departments into industry and the development of the whole technique of labour management. They are going to be put to the test in the transition period, and I very much hope they will be found to be a main factor in the settling of industrial problems. These problems will not only affect managements; they will also affect, in a similar manner, trade union executives and officials of all kinds. I am sure that everyone throughout industry, whatever his position, is determined to do his utmost to give to these men and women returning from the Forces the very greatest consideration and help in settling down into their peacetime associations. But not only will there be these individual problems of a novel and, maybe, acute nature during the resettlement period. There will obviously be big and difficult problems affecting the negotiations and agreements between the two sides in the different industries. I would suggest that it is equally of vital importance that these problems and these difficulties should be settled smoothly and peaceably, and that our reconstruction period should not be marred by industrial strife, either in the form of major clashes between the two sides, or by the almost equally damaging form of guerrilla warfare and sniping by one side or the other.
It may well be that we may have, at the end of the war with Germany, to give up the political comradeship and co-operation which has carried us so far in this war and I, for one, regret this very much. In my belief, it would be disastrous if we also forfeited our industrial co-operation at the same time. I claim—and I do not think this can be challenged—that co-operation,

mutual confidence and general unity of purpose are more widespread to-day than ever before in our industrial life. It is to support and to aid this admirable state of affairs in the difficult period of transition that this Bill has been brought in at the present time. I am confident that if we can get through this transition stage, so far as our industrial relations are concerned, with good heart and good comradeship between the two-sides then, however poor we may find ourselves at the end of the war and however many difficulties we may have to overcome, we shall come out all right. If we wish to maintain our standard of living, our way of life, and our export trade, we literally will not be able to afford strikes and lock-outs, and industrial trouble and dispute of that kind. It is because I hope, and confidently believe, that this Bill will contribute towards peace and stability in industry during the transition period that I ask this House to give it a Second Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Cary.]

Committee To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — WAGES COUNCILS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of wages councils, and otherwise for the regulation of the remuneration and conditions of employment of workers in certain circumstances, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Minister of Labour and National Service in carrying the said Act into effect and any expenses authorised by that Minister with the consent of the Treasury to be incurred by a wages council, a commission of inquiry or a central co-ordinating committee established or set up thereunder."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Bevin.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — EIRE (WAR CRIMINALS, RIGHT OF ASYLUM)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Cary.]

3.8 p.m.

Professor Savory: It was on the 14th November


that the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs gave the answer of the Government of Southern Ireland to the representations of His Majesty's Ministers with regard to the harbouring of war criminals. After a very considerable delay, and after being pressed again and again in the Dail to give an answer, the reply was at last received. It said:
The right to grant asylum is not in question, and they can give no assurance which would preclude them from exercising that right should justice, charity, or the honour or interest of the nation so require.
In other words, there is nothing whatever in that answer to prevent the Government of Eire giving asylum to any war criminals, even to Himmler and Hitler, should they land in Southern Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or Carson."] He is dead and at peace.

Mrs. Tate: How does the hon. Member know?

Professor Savory: I want to be perfectly fair to the Government of Eire, and I would like to point out that they said:
Should it be found to be detrimental to the interests of the Irish people.
they could refuse the right of asylum. In other words, they leave the matter entirely open: They have not bound themselves in any way to the Governments of the Allies. Either they can, under the first clause, grant asylum to the war criminals, or under the second clause they can say that their presence would be detrimental to the interests of the Irish people, and they could refuse to give them asylum. But there is no definite answer of any kind whatever. If one compares their reply with the very definite statements made by such neutral Powers as Switzerland or Sweden, or even the less satisfactory but still adequate answers given by Spain and Portugal, it would appear that this, so far as I know, is the only neutral country which has not given definite pledges with regard to refusing the right of asylum to war criminals.
The Government of the United Kingdom have given their reply. It was part of an answer to a question, and it was given by the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on the same date, the 14th November, when he stated:
The United Kingdom Government for their part, wish to make it clear that it would cer-

tainly, in the words used by the Eire Government, be 'detrimental to the interests of the Irish people' were war criminals to be harboured in Eire".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1944; Vol. 404, c. 1766.]
That was the answer given by the Under-Secretary. On a previous occasion the Under-Secretary said—on 21st March, 1944—that
the position of Eire at the present time is anomalous. Broadly, Eire is treated by us as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1944; Vol. 398, c. 660.]
I pointed out in a supplementary question that the citizens of Eire enjoyed far greater privileges in this country as British subjects than the citizens of all other Dominions. We have had answers given to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the Postmaster-General showing that very nearly £11,000,000 was sent in 1943 by the citizens of Eire in postal orders to Southern Ireland. They have come over here, they have enjoyed every possible advantage and privilege, they have taken jobs which other British subjects have had to evacuate because they were called up, they have occupied their posts, and they are taking the positions of those who have gone to fight, not merely for the United Kingdom, but also for Eire. Their medical men come over here; they do not have to pass any examination whatever. They can practise without requiring any further qualification than that which they have already obtained in Eire.
Mr. de Valera, on the other hand, constantly, refers in speech after speech to Great Britain as a foreign Power, and her King is described as a foreign king. But the citizens of Eire are not treated as foreigners when they come over to this country. They are not required to be indoors by 10.30 p.m., they are not required to get a permit, if they go five miles from their domicile or sleep a night away from home, they are not deprived of having a bicycle or even of having a radio set. They are treated in exactly the same way as all other British subjects.
But for this very exceptional treatment how has Eire shown her gratitude? Let us take the answer given to us by our Prime Minister, speaking in this House on 5th November, 1940. He said:
The fact that we cannot use the South and West coasts of Ireland to refuel our flotillas and aircraft and thus protect the trade by which Ireland as well as Great Britain lives, is a most heavy and most grievous burden and


one which should never have been placed on our shoulders, broad though they be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1940; Vol. 365, c. 1243.]
I was reading the other day an exceedingly interesting history of the war by an eminent historian, Mr. R. C. K. Ensor, which is published by the Oxford University Press. He writes of the situation in 1942, and says:
As compared with the situation in 1918 the Allies were terribly handicapped by their deprivation of their bases in Northern and Southern Ireland"—
by the North he meant Lough Swilly—
and the necessity of flying round and not over that now neutral territory. Indeed had the island been united"—
the island of Ireland—
and no part of it available to them, it seems probable they might have lost the war.
Had the United Kingdom not had the advantages of the bases in Northern Ireland for her Fleet and her aeroplanes, this historian says, it seems probable the Allies might have lost the war.
When the Prime Minister made the statement to which I have referred on 5th November, 1940, he was followed two days later by Mr. de Valera, who replied to him in the Dail to this effect:
There can be no question of the handing over of these ports so long as this State remains neutral. There can be no question of our leasing these ports. They are ours. They are within our sovereignty. There can be no question, so long as we remain neutral, of handing them over on any conditions whatsoever. Any attempt to bring pressure to bear on us by any side, and by any of the belligerents—by Britain"—
he specified Britain—
could only lead to bloodshed.
Then again we had, in January, 1942, the amazing protest made by Mr. de Valera against the landing of American troops in Northern Ireland. This protest was couched in extraordinary—and I can only describe them with great moderation as extravagant—terms. The protest, which was handed by the High Commissioner here in London to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, was also handed by Mr. Robert Brennan, the Minister of Eire in Washington, to Mr. Cordell Hull. But Northern Ireland is outside the jurisdiction of Mr. de Valera. As everybody here knows it is part of the United Kingdom, and in protesting

against the landing of American troops in Northern Ireland Mr. de Valera was going entirely outside his constitutional position, was interfering in a matter in which he had no locus standi whatever. The question of whether or not American troops should land in Northern Ireland was one exclusively for the Government of the United Kingdom, the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States. Mr. de Valera however took it upon himself to protest both in London and in Washington against the landing of these American troops in Northern Ireland.
The protest was based on the ground that he objected to what he calls the partition of Ireland; that is to say, the constitutional position set up by the Act of 1920, ratified and confirmed by overwhelming majorities of both Houses of Southern Ireland in 1925—this constitutional position under which the six counties of Northern Ireland are part and parcel of the United Kingdom. He made this claim on three grounds. He said that this partition of Ireland was only to be compared—and, remember, he was protesting to the United States—to the attempt made by the Southern States in the '60's to secede from the United States of America. That was one of his farfetched comparisons. The second was that he compared the partition of Ireland to the partition of Poland. As we all know, Poland was three times partitioned: in 1772, in 1779, and in 1795, with the final result that Poland disappeared altogether from the map of Europe. It was not merely a partition, it was a complete absorption of Poland into the three neighbouring States. Thirdly, Mr. de Valera maintained that this separation of Northern Ireland was to be compared to the aggression made by Germany on the smaller States. I presume that he was referring to the aggression of Hitler against Belgium, Norway, and Holland. I leave it to this House to say whether there is any real analogy between the invasion by Hitler of these independent States and the fact that Northern Ireland has remained part of the United Kingdom.
It must never be forgotten that there are two Irelands, differing from one another in political outlook, in race, in religion, and even in language, if Mr. de Valera is to have his way. Mr. de Valera has made Irish compulsory, even in those


parts of Ireland where Irish has not been spoken for hundreds of years. Not only is it compulsory to learn Irish, but it is also compulsory to give instruction in various subjects, such as history and geography, in the Irish language, the instruction being given by teachers who have only an imperfect knowledge of Irish, to pupils who have not a single word of Irish. Therefore, the difference between these two Irelands is a difference not merely of race and religion, but, if Mr. de Valera is to have his way, in language as well. When Lord Durham went out to Canada and made his famous report, he saw that there were two Canadas. There was Upper Canada, or Ontario, and Lower Canada, or the Province of Quebec. Lord Durham maintained that it was impossible to place one of those Canadas under the other, because they differed in outlook, differed in language, differed in race, and differed in religion. Therefore, from that time to this those two Canadas have been two separate Provinces in Canada—now forming separate parts of the Dominion. One has not been made subordinate to the other. We in Northern Ireland demand that the Northern part of the island, which differs just as much from the South as Quebec does from Ontario, shall not be placed in subjection to the Southern half. We ask that our status, which has been accorded to us and confirmed to us over and over again by the British Government, shall be maintained. But Mr. de Valera, ignoring all these treaties—the Act of 1920, the Treaty of 1921, and the Agreement of 1925—protested against the landing of American troops in Northern Ireland.
Further, a couple of years later, it was found necessary to send a request to the Government of Eire that they should dismiss from their capital the Axis representatives. The Prime Minister, in this House, on 14th March, 1944, stated:
The initiative in this matter was taken by the United States, because of the danger to the American Armed Forces from the presence of Axis missions in Dublin. His Majesty's Government were, however, of course, consulted throughout by the United States Government, and gave the American approach full support.
He added that
a substantial disservice"—
note the very choice language of the Prime Minister—

to the Allied cause
was
involved in the retention by Mr. de Valera's Government of the German Minister and the Japanese Consul with their staffs in Dublin.
The Prime Minister went on to say:
No one, I think, can reproach us with precipitancy. No nation in the world would have been so patient. In view, however, of the fact that both British and British. Dominion lives and the lives of the soldiers of our Allies are imperilled, we are bound to do our utmost to obtain effective security for the forthcoming operations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1944; Vol. 398, c. 36–7]
We know that the reply of Mr. de Valera was a point-blank refusal. Nothing whatever was done to comply with the very carefully-worded, and very respectful, and very deferential, request made by the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the American Government. No, Mr. de Valera determined to maintain his neutrality. On a former occasion I endeavoured to show—and no one has ever replied to my argument, and I believe that it is absolutely sound—that Mr. de Valera, constitutionally, has no right whatever to neutrality, in the sense of harbouring in Dublin representatives of His Majesty's enemies. Mr. de Valera's Government have a right to non-belligerency, because Eire is a Dominion. A Dominion would have to vote the credits if it were to go to war, and a Dominion Parliament has the right to refuse to vote those credits. But I absolutely deny that, constitutionally, any Dominion has the right to harbour the enemies of His Majesty as representatives. The reason, surely, is obvious. Mr. de Valera, as I pointed out just now, protested against the landing of American troops in Northern Ireland. But the Crown, in September, 1939, declared war upon Germany. Now, the Crown, through the Eire Minister at Washington, who has been accredited by the Crown, whose letters of credit have been signed by the Crown, has protested against help being given to His Majesty in his war against Germany. His Majesty, on the one hand, declares war; His Majesty, on the other hand, protests against help being given to him in the war which he has declared. As I pointed out on another occasion, that is a reductio ad absurdum, and to maintain that a Dominion can be neutral in the sense of harbouring enemies of His Majesty, is absolutely unconstitutional.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Might I ask my hon. Friend, in order to make it absolutely clear, if he will relate that to the Statute of Westminster, which gave independence to each Dominion?

Professor Savory: In order not to take up too much of the time of the House, I can only refer the hon. Gentleman, who was not present on that occasion, to the speech in which I dealt at great length with the Statute of Westminster, and of which I will send him a copy, which will give him his answer.
I was just going to relate when I was interrupted that this constitutional position had the approval of a gentleman who was the very greatest living constitutional authority—the late Professor Berriedale Keith. I have a letter in which he says that the constitutional position that I have taken up is absolutely sound from the point of view of the law of the British Empire.
When the Prime Minister made that statement with regard to his complaint of the presence of the Axis representatives in Dublin and requested the Government of Eire to dismiss them, the Prime Minister was not aware of something, which has come to light since. That is the extraordinary discovery at a garage near Brussels of no less than—according to the Secretary of State for War in a statement made in this House—10,000,000 maps of Eire which had been prepared by Hitler with a view to the invasion of Eire. There was every kind of map, 10,000,000 of them, with plenty of spare parts, showing the approach to every port in Eire both from the sea and the land. There were contour maps and even picture postcards containing every possible indication and guide with a view to the invasion of Eire. Now, we were told by "The Times" correspondent, who carefully examined these documents, that they only came into existence in August, 1940. That was many months after Mr. de Valera, on the outbreak of the war in September, 1939, had informed the German Minister in Dublin that, in this war, Eire would maintain the strictest neutrality. Therefore, while Mr. de Valera was giving his assurances that Eire would remain neutral, the Government of Hitler was making every possible preparation for the invasion of Eire. Even before the war, a map was discovered and published in "The Times" showing that, even then,

the German General Staff were being instructed how Great Britain could be invaded from Ireland.
In spite of all this, Mr. de Valera has maintained the very strictest neutrality. In fact, the Government are so neutral that Dublin is a perfect blaze of light. We have heard a great deal of radiolocation, but it is perfectly certain that, during those two terrible raids on the city of Belfast on Easter Tuesday, 1941, and on the first Sunday of May in the same year, when 55,000 houses were seriously damaged in the city and no less than 942 people were killed, very great help—I say no more, and I will not maintain that the German aeroplanes could not have found the city of Belfast without the help of the blaze of light in Dublin—was given to them, and my opinion is corroborated by experts, who agree that the fact that Dublin was a perfect blaze of light made it a landmark for the bombing of Belfast and, subsequently, also of Liverpool. What happened? Hundreds of aeroplanes were seen over Dublin. They had nothing to do but follow the coast to the well lighted city of Drogheda, and, a few miles further, to the city of Dundalk, from which they had not much more than 50 miles to go to reach Belfast. The whole distance between Dublin and Belfast by road is only 103 miles. This attitude of neutrality, in maintaining this blaze of light, was undoubtedly a great help to the enemy in the terrible raids which I have described and which took place on Belfast.
The hope had been expressed that Eire would, at least, refuse to harbour war criminals, but the answer which I have quoted is so equivocal and ambiguous that it allows the Government of Eire, under the pretext of charity, to give asylum even to the very worst of Axis criminals.
To sum up, hitherto His Majesty's Government have adopted a policy of appeasement and conciliation with regard to Eire. When Mr. de Valera made his protest against the landing of American troops, no reply was made by His Majesty's Government. The fact that they made no reply to this protest, which so vitally affected the Constitution and territorial rights of Northern Ireland, had a very deplorable effect, as can be understood, in Northern Ireland. We felt that, not merely should a reply have been sent,


but the Government might even have gone further and rejected altogether this protest on the grounds that it had no raison d'être and that Mr. de Valera had no locus standi whatsoever to protest against the landing of American troops in Northern Ireland. But no reply was given by His Majesty's Government. This protest was accepted in silence.
Further, nothing was done by His Majesty's Government when Mr. de Valera refused to dismiss the Axis representatives in Dublin. That refusal might have been foreseen. Any Ulster Member of Parliament here could have told the British Government that they were going to meet with a blank refusal. I maintain that it is the art of statesmanship to look ahead, to foresee one step following on another, and to see and consider what you are going to do if you are met with a blank refusal. Why was that further step not considered? What happened was this. Mr. de Valera triumphed over the fact that he had flouted the Government of the United Kingdom. He took the first opportunity of recommending the President of Eire to dissolve Parliament, and the burden of his election addresses was that he had upheld the neutrality of Eire, he had rejected the request of the British Government and that of the Government of the United States and had got away with it. He was returned with a majority over all other parties combined. Before this, he had been in a minority in the House; that is to say, in an absolute minority. He had no overhead majority, and a combination of the other parties could have defeated him, which they actually did by a majority of one. He took this golden opportunity of dissolving his Parliament and received a majority over all other parties combined. That is the only result of the request made by the British Government and by the United States that these Axis representatives should be dismissed.
Thirdly, and lastly, we have this refusal to comply with the representations of His Majesty's Government with regard to war criminals. I have pointed out that Mr. de Valera's answer leaves it entirely open to the Government of Eire to do whatever they like in the matter. They can, if they please, under the pretext of charity and justice, give asylum to these war criminals, or they can, if they like, say that it is detrimental to the

interests of Ireland and refuse to receive them. In any case, they have not bound themselves in any way and, so far as I am aware, Eire is the only neutral country which has not given a definite undertaking. I, therefore, appeal to His Majesty's Government, after all that has gone before, to take a more serious and logical view of the situation. I feel that it is going rather too far to leave it open to the Government of Southern Ireland to give asylum to these war criminals should they so desire. I would only conclude by a quotation from a very great poet, who said this:
Look South! the gale is scarce o'er past
That stripped and laid us down,
When we stood forth but they stood fast
And thought to see us drown.

3.41 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I intervene with great diffidence in this Motion on the Adjournment. My hon. Friend opposite has made a very striking, exhaustive and sincere speech on one of the most baffling problems with which, within the limits of the smaller sphere of politics, we have to deal in this House. I entirely sympathise with him in the views to which he has given expression on the attitude of the Government of Eire in two respects. First of all with regard to the ports, he will recall that, but for the powers that we gave to the Government of Eire under the Statute of Westminster, their sovereignty would have disappeared. The use of the ports was declined. This House must always regard as a great example of patience on the part of the Prime Minister and the Government of this country, the way they bore the refusal that these ports should be used in the service of the country at a time when sacrifices were being made by the Mercantile Marine on the Atlantic. When my hon. Friend spoke of the legations of Germany and other enemy countries, I am in entire sympathy with him. The Eire Government maintained that, under powers conferred upon them by this Government, they were empowered to take this stand under the Statute of Westminster because they had its full authority.
The Irish question, which has perturbed this House for generations, should, during the remaining part of this great war, be allowed to lie a little in abeyance. There is all the difficulty of raising embers which might have been burnt out.


I recall that, during the progress of this war, in spite of all the difficulties of Southern Ireland in its attitude towards the obligations of defending the liberties of the world in the future, many Irishmen have come into the service of His Majesty's Government. I put a Question a short time ago to the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs which he could not answer because the statistics are not available. I asked how many Irishmen have actually been fighting on the side of liberty in this war. Though the sins of the past that my hon. Friend has succinctly presented to the House this afternoon are great and many, and, as Macaulay said of Warren Hastings, "neither few nor small," nevertheless, there is something to be said for a country which, in spite of its status in the British Commonwealth, has sent thousands of people to fight on the side of the Allies. They have come of their own volition to fight in the Navy, Army and Air Force. I take no exception to many of the arguments which have been advanced by my hon. Friend. I am an Irishman and have been in this House for a quarter of a century, and we have some claim to consideration in the extent to which we have made a contribution voluntarily from Southern Ireland during these sad times. There have been a number of distinctions conferred by His Majesty's Government upon citizens of Eire. I would like to call them citizens of the Commonwealth. The only vote that I ever gave in this House which has caused me misery and regret was when I voted for the Statute of Westminster. It was one of the most shameful things I have ever done.

Mr. Sloan: The hon. Member is not speaking for Ireland now.

Sir P. Hannon: We should keep the future in view when raising questions in this House. Delicate and difficult matters might have their roots in some of the opinions expressed and statements made in the House of Commons. Difficult problems will have to be settled vis à vis the United States of America. We have seen some of the embarrassing questions which have to be settled in the United States, and let us in this House not say or do anything which may embarrass the Prime Minister and the Government of this country in settling international

affairs. I do not take exception to my hon. Friend in taking the line that he has taken in the House of Commons. It is right to bring these matters before the House, and he has done it without any malice or vehemence of any kind in his arguments. This Irish question down the ages has been so much a disturbing influence in British politics, in the whole outlook in our relations with the Empire and in regard to international relations as well, that the less we say at this time of a harmful or hurtful character, the better it will be for a settlement in the future.
I think that the Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions will acknowledge the contribution that has been made in many respects by Southern Ireland to the war effort and agree that it must command the respect of those responsible for the direction of the war organisation. I would say to him also that overseas, especially in our Dominions, in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and everywhere, the Irish race has played its part, and that in the United States itself masses of Irishmen have voluntarily placed themselves at the disposal of the American war administration. We should not say hard things about relationships which revive this old, historical and heated question of Ireland. It has caused enough misery in the past, let us not bring more misery in the future. I agree with my hon. Friend that great mistakes have been made and that great faults have been advanced against Southern Irishmen, but do not let there be any further arguments in this House to make it more difficult for a timely and friendly understanding in future with Irish element.

3.49 p.m.

Sir William Wayland: I would like to say a few words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory). One can understand the feelings of the men of Belfast in connection with Southern Ireland. I remembered, as I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) speak of the Statute of Westminster, the time when we were discussing the treaty made between Michael Collins and others and the Government of this country. Though we wanted it to be kept in being when the Statute of Westminster was passed, the majority of the House declined, because Mr. Cosgrave, the Premier of Southern


Ireland, had promised our Government here that definite things should be done, as they have been done since that time. There is no doubt whatever that the feeling of the people of this country towards the Government of Southern Ireland is very different from their feeling towards the soldiers and the men of Southern Ireland who have fought for us in different parts of the world. We have no enmity towards the Irishman as an Irishman; all we have is an enmity towards the position taken up by Mr. de Valera in connection with this war. It appears to me, and I daresay to many others, that whenever Mr. de Valera kicks the Government of the United Kingdom, all the Government here do is to give a bow in return. We have received many kicks; we have returned no angry words although we were perfectly justified, and I think that if the Government of this country had taken up a firmer attitude towards Southern Ireland than they have done, we should be in a different position in relation to Southern Ireland to-day.

3.51 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): My hon. Friend who opened this Debate has raised one particular aspect of the question of war criminals which is the subject of wide interest, not only in this country but also in the United States and among the other United Nations. As he said, approaches were made to a number of neutral countries, and they gave assurances that they would not afford right of asylum to those who have been responsible for the many crimes which have been committed by our enemies. The United States also addressed a similar inquiry to the Government of Eire and this was supported by the United Kingdom Government. The reply of Eire has already been published, and the United States commented upon it in the following terms:
We are glad to have the assurances of the Irish reply, but it did not go as far as we would have liked in all particulars.
The United Kingdom Government are in agreement with the view of the United States Government. The substance, as my hon. Friend will recollect, of the Eire Government's answer was set forth in the reply which I gave to a Question which he addressed to me on 14th November. As he will remember, the Government of Eire stated that:

in their view, the right to grant asylum is not in question, and that they can give no assurance which would preclude them from exercising that right should justice, charity or the honour or interest of the nation so require. They also refer to the absence of a comprehensive international code applicable to the matter, and to the lack of a generally recognised court or procedure for the judicial determination of individual cases.
They went on to say:
Since the present war began, it has been the uniform practice of the Eire Government to deny admission to all aliens whose presence would be at variance with the policy of neutrality, or detrimental to the interests of the Irish people, or inconsistent with the desire of the Irish people or to avoid injury to the interests of friendly states, and that were such aliens to land they would be deported to their countries of origin as soon as possible. They state that it is not intended to alter this practice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1944; Vol. 404; c. 1765 and 1766.]
As I explained to the House on that occasion, we noted the intention of the Eire Government to continue their practice of denying admission to all aliens whose presence would be detrimental to the Irish people. It will be clear to the Irish people, as it is to the people of this country, that to harbour Axis criminals would be detrimental to their interests. There is, however, no reason to assume that any Axis criminals mean to escape to Eire and that even if they did so, the Eire Government would allow them to enter their country.
Our complaint against the Eire Government's reply is that it is equivocal, and that they have not made their position sufficiently clear. This is the point to which the United States Government, and we alike, have taken objection, and the Eire Government are well aware that this is the case.
My hon. Friend raised various other points in the course of his speech on which I should like to say a few words. In the first place he mentioned the bases. I agree with him that the fact that the bases were handed over has been, in the words of the Prime Minister which I think he used, "a grievous and heavy burden to this country". That is, of course, the case, and I agree with him and, of course, with the Prime Minister that this should never have taken place, but, after all, that agreement was made a considerable time before the war—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Not a considerable time"]—well, nearly a year or 18 months before the war, and in any case it was not an agreement for which the present Government were in


any way responsible. No doubt my hon. Friend and the House will remember the speech of the Prime Minister when the Bases Agreement was brought before the House, in which he anticipated in almost every particular what subsequently happened. That Agreement was one of the burdens which we found placed on our shoulders, and there is nothing I could say now which would affect the position in any way.
Then my hon. Friend raised the question of the landing of the United States troops in Northern Ireland and the protest made by Mr. de Valera. So far as His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom were concerned, they ignored the protest, and a reply was given in this House, by my predecessor, showing that we were not prepared to consider Mr. de Valera's protest. I think myself that was the best way of dealing with the situation. Our position had been made perfectly clear on numerous occasions both before and since Mr. de Valera's statement in January, 1942. I think I can make the position quite clear by quoting the statement made an 30th December, 1937, by the United Kingdom Government when the new Constitution of Eire came into being. It was in the following terms:
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom take note of Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the new Constitution. They cannot recognise that the adoption of the name of 'Eire' or 'Ireland,' or any other provision of those Articles, involves any right to terrritory or jurisdiction over territory forming part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or affects in any way the position of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
That makes the position of the Government quite clear and we felt that it would be wrong to take any notice of Mr. de Valera's protest. We think, and we believe, and we maintain that he has no status in the matter whatsoever. My hon. Friend can be quite reassured that so far as the Government are concerned we are very conscious of the position of Northern Ireland, and that nothing which has been said by people in Southern Ireland in any way affects the position or the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.
Then again he touched on the question of the Axis representatives. As I have

pointed out on a number of occasions, that has been a running sore. We are only too conscious of the feeling—in fact the Government share the feeling—that to have Axis representatives in Dublin is a very unhappy state of affairs, and it is one which I have assured my hon. Friend again and again is being very carefully watched. My hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) made what I thought was a moving speech when he spoke for his race rather than for Eire itself. He made an appeal to the House that we should endeavour to overlook some of the actions of the Eire Government and remember the services which have been rendered by his countrymen all over the world during this War. Of course, we shall remember, and we do remember. I am sorry that I have not been able to obtain the figures which he would like to have; I have made inquiries but it has not been found possible to do so.

Major Markham: Can the hon. Gentleman give any reasons why it is impossible to obtain the figures? It is not impossible to produce them for other parts of the British Empire. There seems to be more or less a conspiracy of silence on the part of the Government about this matter.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: There is no conspiracy of silence on the part of the Government; it is just the fact that it has not been possible to decide what numbers of His Majesty's Forces come from Eire and which do not. We have made great efforts to find out, but it has not been possible. But whatever the figures may be we are very appreciative—

Sir P. Hannon: In view of the fact that great numbers of Irishmen are recruited in Glasgow, Newcastle-on-Tyne and Liverpool I agree that it is difficult to provide the statistics.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: My hon. Friend, as I have said, was speaking for the Irish race rather than for Eire itself and we shall remember the services which his countrymen have rendered and the appeal which he has made to-day.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes after Four o'Clock.